An ordinal approach to computing with words and the preference–aversion model

Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
Advisors (or tutors)
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Computing with words (CWW) explores the brain’s ability to handle and evaluate perceptions through language, i.e., by means of the linguistic representation of information and knowledge. On the other hand, standard preference structures examine decision problems through the decomposition of the preference predicate into the simpler situations of strict preference, indifference and incomparability. Hence, following the distinctive cognitive/ neurological features for perceiving positive and negative stimuli in separate regions of the brain, we consider two separate and opposite poles of preference and aversion, and obtain an extended preference structure named the Preference–aversion (P–A) structure. In this way, examining the meaning of words under an ordinal scale and using CWW’s methodology, we are able to formulate the P–A model under a simple and purely linguistic approach to decision making, obtaining a solution based on the preference and nonaversion order.
[1] N. Agell, M. Sánchez, F. Prats, L. Roselló, Ranking multi-attribute alternatives on the basis of linguistic labels in group decisions, Information Sciences 209 (2012) 49–60. [2] A. Amo, J. Montero, G. Biging, V. Cutello, Fuzzy classification systems, European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2004) 495–507. [3] A. Amo, J. Montero, E. Molina, Representation of consistent recursive rules, European Journal of Operational Research 130 (2011) 29–53. [4] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 87–96. [5] H. Bustince, M. Pagola, R. Mesiar, E. Hüllermeier, F. Herrera, Grouping overlap and generalized bi-entropic functions for fuzzy modelling of pairwise comparisons, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 20 (2012) 405–415. [6] J. Cacioppo, W. Gardner, G. Berntson, Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space, Personality and Social Psychology Review 1 (1997) 3–25. [7] T. Chen, Bivariate models of optimism and pessimism in multi-criteria decision-making based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Information Sciences 181 (2011) 2139–2165. [8] M. Delgado, J. Verdegay, M. Vila, On aggregation operations of linguistic labels, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 8 (1993) 351–370. [9] D. Dubois, H. Prade, An introduction to bipolar representations of information and preference, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 23 (2008)866–877. [10] J. Fodor, M. Roubens, Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1994. [11] C. Franco, J. Montero, J.T. Rodríguez, On partial comparability and fuzzy preference–aversion models, Foundations of Intelligent Systems, Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 122 (2011) 307–316. [12] C. Franco, J. Montero, J.T. Rodríguez, A fuzzy and bipolar approach to preference modeling with application to need and desire, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 214 (2013) 20–34. [13] J. Goguen, The logic of inexact concepts, Synthese 19 (1969) 325–373. [14] J. González-Pachón, D. Gómez, J. Montero, J. Yáñez, Soft dimensión theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003) 137–149. [15] F. Herrera, S. Alonso, F. Chiclana, E. Herrera-Viedma, Computing with words in decision making: foundations, trends and prospects, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 8 (2009) 337–364. [16] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 115 (2000) 67–82. [17] F. Herrera, L. Martínez, P. Sánchez, Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making, European Journal of Operational Research 166 (2005) 115–132 [18] D. Kahneman, A. Tversky, Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk, Econometrica 47 (1979) 263–291. [19] K. Kaplan, On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: a suggested modification of the semantic differential technique, Psychological Bulletin 77 (1972) 361–372. [20] A. Keil, M. Stolarova, S. Moratti, W. Ray, Adaptation in human visual cortex as a mechanism for rapid discrimination of aversive stimuli, NeuroImage 36 (2007) 472–479. [21] D. Li, Multiattribute decision making method based on generalized OWA operators with intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Expert Systems with Applications 37 (2010) 8673–8678. [22] D. Li, Z. Huang, G. Chen, A systematic approach to heterogeneous multiattribute group decision making,Computers & Industrial Engineering 59 (2010) 561–572. [23] P. Liu, F. Jin, Methods for aggregating intuitionistic uncertain linguistic variables and their application to group decision making, Information Sciences 205 (2012) 58–71. [24] L. Martínez, D. Ruan, F. Herrera, Computing with words in decision support systems: an overview on models and applications, International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems 3 (2010) 382–395. [25] J. Maslowsky, E. Buvinger, D. Keating, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman, Cost-benefit analysis mediation of the relationship between sensation seeking and risk behavior among adolescents, Personality and Individual Differences 51 (2011) 802–806. [26] J. Montero, J. Tejada, C. Cutello, A general model for deriving preference structures from data, European Journal of Operational Research 98 (1997) 98–110. [27] J. Montero, D. Gómez, H. Bustince, On the relevance of some families of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007) 2429–2442. [28] J. O’Doherty, M. Kringelback, E. Rolls, J. Hornak, C. Andrews, Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal cortex,Nature Neuroscience 4 (2001) 95–102. [29] Ch. Osgood, G. Suci, P. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1958. [30] N. Pal, H. Bustince, M. Pagola, U. Mukherjee, D.Goswami, G. Beliakov, Uncertainties with Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets: fuzziness and lack of knowledge, Information Sciences 228 (2013) 61–74. [31] J.T. Rodríguez, C. Franco, J. Montero, On the relationship between bipolarity and fuzziness, in: Proceedings EUROFUSE’2011, 2011, pp. 193-205. [32] J.T. Rodríguez, C. Franco, B. Vitoriano, J. Montero. An axiomatic approach to the notion of semantic antagonism, in: Proceedings IFSA-AFSS’11, FT104-1/6, 2011. [33] M. Roubens, Ph. Vincke, Preference Modeling, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985. [34] B. Roy, The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods, Theory and Decision 31 (1991) 49–73. [35] W. Trotter, Combinatorics and Partially Ordered Sets, Dimension Theory, Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore, 1992. [36] E. Trillas, On a model for the meaning of predicates (A naïve approach to the genesis of fuzzy sets), in: R.Seising (Ed.), Views of Fuzzy Sets and Systems from Different Perspectives, Springer, 2009, pp. 175–205. [37] A. Tsoukiás, Ph. Vincke, A new axiomatic foundation of partial comparability, Theory and Decision 39 (1995) 79–114. [38] A. Tsoukiàs, Ph. Vincke, Extended preference structures in multicriteria decision aid, in: J. Climaco (Ed.), Multicriteria Analysis, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 37–50. [39] A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5 (1992) 297–323. [40] B. Van der Walle, B. de Baets, E. Kerre, Characterizable fuzzy preference structures, Annals of Operations Research 80 (1998) 105–136. [41] S. Wan, D. Li, Fuzzy LINMAP approach to heterogeneous MADM considering comparisons of alternatives with hesitation degrees, Omega 41 (2013)925–940. [42] R.R. Yager, Aggregation of ordinal information, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 6 (2007) 199–219. [43] L. Zadeh, The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I, Information Sciences 8 (1975) 199–249.