Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the field of Artificial Intelligence many models for decision making under uncertainty have been proposed that deviate from the traditional models used in Decision Theory, i.e. the Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) model and its many variants. These models aim at obtaining simple decision rules that can be implemented by efficient algorithms while based on inputs that are less rich than what is required in traditional models. One of these models, called the likely dominance (LD) model, consists in declaring that an act is preferred to another as soon as the set of states on which the first act gives a better outcome than the second act is judged more likely than the set of states on which the second act is preferable. The LD model is at much variance with the SEU model. Indeed, it has a definite ordinal flavor and it may lead to preference relations between acts that are not transitive. This paper proposes a general model for decision making under uncertainty tolerating intransitive and/or incomplete preferences that will contain both the SEU and the LD models as particular cases. Within the framework of this general model, we propose a characterization of the preference relations that can be obtained with the LD model. This characterization shows that the main distinctive feature of such relations lies in the very poor relation comparing preference differences that they induce on the set of outcomes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque : critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blavatskyy, P. (2003a). Content-dependent preferences in choice under risk: heuristic of relative probability comparison (Tech. rep., IIASA). Interim report, IR-03-031, available at www.iiasa.ac.at/Publications/Documents/IR-03-031.pdf.

  • Blavatskyy, P. (2003b). Note on “small feedback-based decisions and their limited correspondence to description-based decisions” (Tech. rep., CERGE-EI). Working paper # 218, available at www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp218.pdf.

  • Blavatskyy, P. (2006). Axiomatization of a preference for most probable winner. Theory and Decision, 60, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, C. (1972). Some probability paradoxes in choice from among random alternatives. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 366–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C. (1994). Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, & P. Torasso (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’94) (pp. 75–86). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1986). Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM. European Journal of Operational Research, 26, 150–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1992). On some properties of outranking relations based on a concordance-discordance principle. In L. Duckstein, A. Goicoechea, & S. Zoiunts (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision making (pp. 93–106). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2002). Nontransitive decomposable conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46(6), 677–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2004a). ‘Additive difference’ models without additivity and subtractivity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48(4), 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2004b). A note on Wakker’s cardinal coordinate independence. Mathematical Social Sciences, 48(1), 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2005). A characterization of concordance relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 167(2), 427–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Vansnick, J.-C. (1986). Noncompensatory and generalized noncompensatory preference structures. Theory and Decision, 21, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). Modeling agents as qualitative decision makers. Artificial Intelligence, 94, 217–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R., & Tennenholtz, M. (2000). On the axiomatization of qualitative decision criteria. Journal of the ACM, 47, 452–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. E., & Kelly, J. S. (2002). Impossibility theorems in the Arrovian framework. In K. J. Arrow, A. K. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 1, pp. 35–94). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chew, S. H., & Karni, E. (1994). Choquet expected utility with a finite state space: commutativity and act-independence. Journal of Economic Theory, 62(2), 469–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doignon, J.-P., Monjardet, B., Roubens, M., & Vincke, Ph. (1988). Biorder families, valued relations and preference modelling. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 435–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., & Thomason, R. H. (1999). Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Magazine, 20(2), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., & Prade, H. (1997). Decision-making under ordinal preferences and uncertainty. In D. Geiger & P. P. Shenoy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 157–164). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Prade, H., & Sabbadin, R. (2001). Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 128, 459–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., & Prade, H. (2002). Qualitative decision theory: from Savage’s axioms to nonmonotonic reasoning. Journal of the ACM, 49(4), 455–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., & Perny, P. (2003a). Qualitative decision theory with preference relations and comparative uncertainty: an axiomatic approach. Artificial Intelligence, 148, 219–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., & Prade, H. (2003b). A characterization of generalized concordance rules in multicriteria decision-making. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 18(7), 751–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fargier, H., & Perny, P. (1999). Qualitative decision models under uncertainty without the commensurability assumption. In K. B. Laskey & H. Prade (Eds.), Proceedings of uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 188–195). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fargier, H., & Perny, P. (2001). Modélisation des préférences par une règle de concordance généralisée. In A. Colorni, M. Paruccini, & B. Roy (Eds.), A-MCD-A, aide multicritère à la décision/multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 99–115). European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision-making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1973). Binary choice probabilities: on the varieties of stochastic transitivity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 10, 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1975). Axioms for lexicographic preferences. Review of Economic Studies, 42, 415–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1976). Noncompensatory preferences. Synthese, 33, 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1978). A survey of multiattribute/multicriteria evaluation theories. In S. Zionts (Ed.), Multicriteria problem solving (pp. 181–224). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1984). SSB utility theory and decision-making under uncertainty. Mathematical Social Sciences, 8(3), 253–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1986). The axioms of subjective probability. Statistical Science, 1(3), 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1988). Nonlinear preference and utility theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1989). Non-transitive measurable utility for decision under uncertainty. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 18, 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1990). Skew symmetric additive utility with finite states. Mathematical Social Sciences, 19, 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4, 113–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1992). Additive differences and simple preference comparisons. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., & Lavalle, I. H. (1987a). A nonlinear, nontransitive and additive-probability model for decisions under uncertainty. The Annals of Statistics, 15(2), 830–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., & Lavalle, I. H. (1987b). State-dependent SSB utility. Economics Letters, 25(1), 21–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., & Lavalle, I. H. (1988). Context-dependent choice with nonlinear and nontransitive preferences. Econometrica, 56(5), 1221–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I. (1987). Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16, 65–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch, M., Nguyen, H. T., & Walker, E. A. (1995). Fundamentals of uncertainty calculi, with applications to fuzzy inference. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karni, E., & Schmeidler, D. (1991). Utility theory with uncertainty. In W. Hildebrand & H. Sonnenschein (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics, (Vol. 4, pp. 1763–1831). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Additive and polynomial representations : Vol. 1. Foundations of measurement. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavalle, I. H., & Fishburn, P. C. (1987). Decision analysis under states-additive SSB preferences. Operations Research, 35(5), 722–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. J. (1996). Generalized qualitative probability: Savage revisited. In Proceedings of the 12th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, UAI’96 (pp. 381–388). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1982). Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1987). Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 41, 270–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, L. L. (1981). Decision making in the short run. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 377–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. (2000). Utility of gains and losses: measurement-theoretical and experimental approaches. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Milnor, J. (1954). Games against nature. In R. M. Thrall, C. H. Coombs, & R. L. Davis (Eds.), Decision processes (pp. 49–59). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Y. (1990). Subjective expected utility with non-additive probabilities on finite state spaces. Journal of Economic Theory, 51, 346–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Y. (1998). Skew-symmetric additive representations of preferences. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 30, 367–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari, D. G. (1998). Connecting and resolving Sen’s and Arrow’s theorems. Social Choice and Welfare, 15, 239–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, R. P., Jr. (1994). The paradox of nontransitive dice. American Mathematical Monthly, 101(5), 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, U. (2004). Alternatives to expected utility: formal theories. In S. Barberà, P. J. Hammond, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (Vol. 2, pp. 757–837). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1986). Social choice theory. In K. J. Arrow & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical economics (Vol. 3, pp. 1073–1181). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII, 332–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1993). An axiomatic foundation for regret theory. Journal of Economic Theory, 60, 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (2004). Alternatives to expected utility: foundations. In S. Barberà, P. J. Hammond, & C. Seidl (Eds.), Handbook of utility theory (Vol. 2, pp. 685–755). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S.-W., & Pearl, J. (1994). Qualitative decision theory. In AAAI 1994, proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 928–933). Melno Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansnick, J.-C. (1986). On the problems of weights in MCDM (the noncompensatory approach). European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 288–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1984). Cardinal coordinate independence for expected utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 110–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1988). Derived strength of preference relations on coordinates. Economic Letters, 28, 301–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1989). Additive representations of preferences: a new foundation of decision analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1994). Separating marginal utility and probabilistic risk aversion. Theory and Decision, 36(1), 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1996). The sure-thing principle and the comonotonic sure-thing principle: an axiomatic analysis. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 25(2), 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P., & Tversky, A. (1993). An axiomatization of cumulative project theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 147–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, W. (1953). Lady luck. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMSADE, Université Paris Dauphine, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Denis Bouyssou

  2. Faculté Polytechnique de Mons, 9, rue de Houdain, 7000, Mons, Belgium

    Marc Pirlot

Authors
  1. Denis Bouyssou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Pirlot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Bouyssou.

Additional information

We wish to thank two anonymous referees for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this text. The usual caveat applies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bouyssou, D., Pirlot, M. On some ordinal models for decision making under uncertainty. Ann Oper Res 163, 19–48 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-008-0329-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-008-0329-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation