IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1603.08142.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conjoint axiomatization of the Choquet integral for heterogeneous product sets

Author

Listed:
  • Mikhail Timonin

Abstract

We propose an axiomatization of the Choquet integral model for the general case of a heterogeneous product set $X = X_1 \times \ldots \times X_n$. In MCDA elements of $X$ are interpreted as alternatives, characterized by criteria taking values from the sets $X_i$. Previous axiomatizations of the Choquet integral have been given for particular cases $X = Y^n$ and $X = \mathbb{R}^n$. However, within multicriteria context such identicalness, hence commensurateness, of criteria cannot be assumed a priori. This constitutes the major difference of this paper from the earlier axiomatizations. In particular, the notion of "comonotonicity" cannot be used in a heterogeneous structure, as there does not exist a "built-in" order between elements of sets $X_i$ and $X_j$. However, such an order is implied by the representation model. Our approach does not assume commensurateness of criteria. We construct the representation and study its uniqueness properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikhail Timonin, 2016. "Conjoint axiomatization of the Choquet integral for heterogeneous product sets," Papers 1603.08142, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1603.08142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08142
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak, 1987. "Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 65-88, February.
    3. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    4. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    5. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2004. "Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough-set decision rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 271-292, October.
    6. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2010. "Additive conjoint measurement with ordered categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 195-204, May.
    7. Gerard Debreu, 1959. "Topological Methods in Cardinal Utility Theory," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 76, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    8. Denis Bouyssou & Thierry Marchant & Marc Pirlot, 2009. "A Conjoint Measurement Approach to the Discrete Sugeno Integral," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Steven J. Brams & William V. Gehrlein & Fred S. Roberts (ed.), The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order, pages 85-109, Springer.
    9. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2010. "Additive conjoint measurement with ordered categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 195-204, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    2. Paul Alain Kaldjob Kaldjob & Brice Mayag & Denis Bouyssou, 2022. "On the robustness of the sign of nonadditivity index in a Choquet integral model," Post-Print hal-03904424, HAL.
    3. Paul Alain Kaldjob Kaldjob & Brice Mayag & Denis Bouyssou, 2023. "On the interpretation of the interaction index between criteria in a Choquet integral model," Post-Print hal-03766372, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mikhail Timonin, 2015. "Axiomatization of the Choquet integral for 2-dimensional heterogeneous product sets," Papers 1507.04167, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    2. Amit Kothiyal & Vitalie Spinu & Peter Wakker, 2014. "An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 1-17, February.
    3. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    4. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    5. Groneck, Max & Ludwig, Alexander & Zimper, Alexander, 2016. "A life-cycle model with ambiguous survival beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 137-180.
    6. Zimper, Alexander, 2012. "Asset pricing in a Lucas fruit-tree economy with the best and worst in mind," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 610-628.
    7. Michaël Lainé, 2014. "Vers une alternative au paradigme de la rationalité ? Victoires et déboires du programme spinoziste en économie," Post-Print hal-01335618, HAL.
    8. Alexander Zimper, 2011. "Re-examining the law of iterated expectations for Choquet decision makers," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 669-677, October.
    9. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Horst Zank, 2023. "Source and rank-dependent utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(4), pages 949-981, May.
    10. Tsang, Ming, 2020. "Estimating uncertainty aversion using the source method in stylized tasks with varying degrees of uncertainty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    11. Yehuda Izhakian, 2012. "Ambiguity Measurement," Working Papers 12-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    12. Alexander Ludwig & Alexander Zimper, 2013. "A decision-theoretic model of asset-price underreaction and overreaction to dividend news," Annals of Finance, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 625-665, November.
    13. Fox, Craig R. & Weber, Martin, 2002. "Ambiguity Aversion, Comparative Ignorance, and Decision Context," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 476-498, May.
    14. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    15. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    16. Border, Kim C. & Segal, Uzi, 1997. "Coherent Odds and Subjective Probability," University of Western Ontario, Departmental Research Report Series 9717, University of Western Ontario, Department of Economics.
    17. Assa, Hirbod & Zimper, Alexander, 2018. "Preferences over all random variables: Incompatibility of convexity and continuity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 71-83.
    18. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    19. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    20. Zvi Safra & Uzi Segal, 2005. "Are Universal Preferences Possible? Calibration Results for Non-Expected Utility Theories," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 633, Boston College Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1603.08142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.