Skip to main content
Log in

PIU: risk-sensitive decision making using Pareto optimization of interval utilities induced by fuzzy preference relations

  • Foundations
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decision making is a process that ranks or chooses subsets from given sets of options, for example, project proposals or machine tools, with high relevance in industry and economics. Each decision option may be associated with a degree of utility with respect to a specific criterion. Often experts are not willing or able to quantify utilities but rather compare individual pairs of options, which leads to fuzzy pairwise preference matrices. Conventionally, decision making on preference matrices uses scoring indices that exhibit different characteristics. Selecting the most appropriate scoring index is often difficult. Scoring indices are associated with different levels of risk, and none of these indices alone can be considered superior. We show that any fuzzy preference matrix induces interval utilities which can be interpreted as memberships of interval type-2 fuzzy sets, so preference-based decision making has to take into account uncertainty and therefore has to be risk sensitive. We propose a risk-sensitive preference-based decision making method called Pareto optimization of interval utilities (PIU) that chooses a subset of options ranked by degrees of risk. This allows the decision maker to choose an option that represents an appropriate trade-off between opportunity and risk for the given decision problem. Experiments with the YouTube Comedy Slam data set show that PIU compared with conventional scoring methods allows to trade a slight decrease in the best-case utility for a strong increase in the worst-case utility, and vice versa.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this article (and its references).

References

  • Baluja S (2016) A simple and efficient method to handle sparse preference data using domination graphs: An application to YouTube. Proc Comput Sci 80:2302–2311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett CR, Pattanaik PK, Salles M (1990) On choosing rationally when preferences are fuzzy. Fuzzy Sets Syst 34(2):197–212

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Barzilai J, Cook WD, Golany B (1987) Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance of alternatives. Oper Res Lett 6(3):131–134

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Beke A, Kumbasar T (2019) Type-2 fuzzy logic-based linguistic pursuing strategy design and its deployment to a real-world pursuit evasion game. IEEE Trans Cybern 50:211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellman R, Zadeh L (1970) Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17(4):141–164

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bilgiç T (1998) Interval-valued preference structures. Eur J Oper Res 105(1):162–183

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D (1996) Outranking relations: do they have special properties? J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 5(2):99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24(2):228–238

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Budak A, Ustundag A (2015) Fuzzy decision making model for selection of real time location systems. Appl Soft Comput 36:177–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo B, Brunelli M (2018) A general unified framework for interval pairwise comparison matrices. Int J Approx Reason 93:178–198

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chavira DAG, Lopez JCL, Noriega JJS, Retamales JLP (2017) A multicriteria outranking modeling approach for personnel selection. In: IEEE International conference on fuzzy systems, Naples, Italy

  • Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (1998) Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst 97(1):33–48

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford GB (1987) The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Math Modell 9(3–5):327–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan ZP, Zhang Y (2010) A goal programming approach to group decision-making with three formats of incomplete preference relations. Soft Comput 14(10):1083–1090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Mousseau V, Roy B (2005) ELECTRE methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys, Springer, pp 133–153

  • Fodor JC, Roubens MR (1994) Fuzzy preference modelling and multicriteria decision support. Springer

  • Gehrke M, Walker C, Walker E (1996) Some comments on interval valued fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 11(10):751–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoseiri K, Lessan J (2014) Waste disposal site selection using an analytic hierarchal pairwise comparison and ELECTRE approaches under fuzzy environment. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 26(2):693–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorzałczany MB (1987) A method of inference in approximate reasoning based on interval-valued fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 21(1):1–17

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kacprzyk J, Zadrozny S (2010) Soft computing and web intelligence for supporting consensus reaching. Soft Comput 14(8):833–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press

  • Klaus-Rosińska A, Schneider J, Bulla V (2018) Research project planning based on SCRUM framework and type-2 fuzzy numbers. In: International conference on information systems architecture and technology, pp 381–391

  • Kubler S, Robert J, Derigent W, Voisin A, Traon YL (2016) A state-of-the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst Appl 65:398–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang Q, Mendel JM (2000) Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8(5):535–550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y, Wang YM, Chin KS (2018) An enhanced approach for two-sided matching with 2-tuple linguistic multi-attribute preference. Soft Comput 23:7977–7990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu J, Zhang G, Ruan D (2008) Intelligent multi-criteria fuzzy group decision-making for situation assessments. Soft Comput 12(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel JM, John RI, Liu F (2006) Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems made simple. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 14(6):808–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen HT, Dawal SZ, Nukman Y, Aoyama H (2014) A hybrid approach for fuzzy multi-attribute decision making in machine tool selection with consideration of the interactions of attributes. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):3078–3090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie M, Tan WW (2008) Towards an efficient type-reduction method for interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems. In: IEEE International conference on fuzzy systems, Hong Kong, pp 1425–1432

  • Parameshwaran R, Kumar SP, Saravanakumar K (2015) An integrated fuzzy MCDM based approach for robot selection considering objective and subjective criteria. Appl Soft Comput 26:31–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravanbakhsh S, Zarrabi H (2017) A type-2 fuzzy scheme for traffic density prediction in smart city. Int J Comput Appl 173(2):35–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Runkler TA (2018) Mapping utilities to transitive preferences. In: rnational conference on information processing and management of uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. Cádiz, Spain, pp 127–139

  • Runkler TA (2020) PrefMap: visualization of fuzzy pairwise preference structures. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 39(3):4027–4040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runkler TA, Coupland S, John R (2017) Interval type-2 fuzzy decision making. Int J Approx Reason 80:217–224

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Runkler TA, Chen C, John R (2018) Type reduction operators for interval type-2 defuzzification. Inf Sci 467:464–476

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Runkler TA, Chen C, Coupland S, John R (2019) Just-in-time supply chain management using interval type-2 fuzzy decision making. In: International conference on fuzzy systems. Louisiana, USA, New Orleans, pp 1149–1154

  • Saaty TL (1996) Multicriteria decision making: the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1987) Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 32(1):107–117

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Schweizer B, Sklar A (1961) Associative functions and statistical triangle inequalities. Publicationes Mathematicae 8:169–186

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shafiee M (2015) A fuzzy analytic network process model to mitigate the risks associated with offshore wind farms. Expert Syst Appl 42(4):2143–2152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shetty S (2012) Quantifying comedy on YouTube: why the number of o’s in your LOL matter. http://ai.googleblog.com/2012/02/quantifying-comedy-on-youtube-why.html

  • Shukla AK, Muhuri PK (2019) General type-2 fuzzy decision making and its application to travel time selection. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(6):5227–5244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 12(2):117–131

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tanino T (1988) Fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. In: Kacprzyk J, Roubens M (eds) Non-conventional preference relations in decision making. Springer, pp 54–71

  • Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Weichselberger K (2000) The theory of interval-probability as a unifying concept for uncertainty. Int J Approx Reason 24(2–3):149–170

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Wu N (2018) A two-stage consensus reaching model for group decision making with reciprocal fuzzy preference relations. Soft Comput 23:8057–8073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Y, Zhang Z, Wang H (2019) A consensus-based method for group decision making with incomplete uncertain linguistic preference relations. Soft Comput 23(2):669–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction, vol 104. Sage Publications

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao M, Liu MY, Su J, Liu T (2019) A shape similarity-based ranking method of hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations using discrete fuzzy number for group decision making. Soft Comput 23:13569–13589

Download references

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. Runkler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Code availability

All relevant code is included in this article (pseudo-code).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Runkler, T.A. PIU: risk-sensitive decision making using Pareto optimization of interval utilities induced by fuzzy preference relations. Soft Comput 26, 1–11 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06414-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-021-06414-9

Keywords

Navigation