The structure of fuzzy preferences: Social choice implications

It has been shown that, with an alternative factorization of fuzzy weak preferences into symmetric and antisymmetric components, one can prove a fuzzy analogue of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem even when the transitivity requirements on individual and social preferences are very weak. It is demonstrated here that the use of this specification of strict preference, however, requires preferences to also be strongly connected. In the absence of strong connectedness, another factorization of fuzzy weak preferences is indicated, for which nondictatorial fuzzy aggregation rules satisfying the weak transitivity requirement can still be found. On the other hand, if strong connectedness is assumed, the fuzzy version of Arrow's Theorem still holds for a variety of weak preference factorizations, even if the transitivity condition is weakened to its absolute minimum. Since Arrow's Impossibility Theorem appeared nearly half a century ago, researchers have been attempting to avoid Arrow's negative result by relaxing various of his original assumptions. One approach has been to allow preferences – those of individuals and society or just those of society alone – to be “fuzzy.” In particular, Dutta [4] has shown that, to a limited extent, one can avoid the impossibility result (or, more precisely, the dictatorship result) by using fuzzy preferences, employing a particularly weak version of transitivity among the many plausible (but still distinct) definitions of transitivity that are available for fuzzy preferences. Another aspect of exact preferences for which the extension to the more general realm of fuzzy preferences is ambiguous is the factorization of a weak preference relation into a symmetric component (indifference) and an antisymmetric component (strict preference). There are several ways to do this for fuzzy weak preferences, all of them equivalent to the traditional factorization in the special case when preferences are exact, but quite different from each other when preferences are fuzzy (see, for example, [3]). A recent paper in this journal [1], by A. Banerjee, argues that the choice of definitions for indifference and strict preference, given a fuzzy weak preference, can also have “Arrovian” implications. In particular, [1] claims that Dutta's version of strict preference presents certain intuitive difficulties and recommends a different version, with its own axiomatic derivation, for which the dictatorship results reappear even with Dutta's weak version of transitivity. However, the conditions used to derive [1]'s version of strict preference imply a restriction on how fuzzy the original weak preference can be, namely, that the fuzzy weak preference relation must be strongly connected. Without this restriction, I will show that the rest of [1]'s conditions imply yet a third version of strict preference, for which Dutta's possibility result under weak transitivity still holds. On the other hand, if one accepts the strong connectedness required in order for it to be valid, I show that [1]'s dictatorship theorem can in fact be strengthened to cover any version of transitivity for fuzzy preferences, no matter how weak, and further, that this dictatorship result holds for any “regular” formulation of strict preference, including the one originally used by Dutta. Received: 13 May 1996 / Accepted: 13 January 1997     

Rationalizability of choice functions on general domains without full transitivity

The rationalizability of a choice function by means of a transitive relation has been analyzed thoroughly in the literature. However, not much seems to be known when transitivity is weakened to quasi-transitivity or acyclicity. Such weakenings are particularly relevant in the context of social choice. We describe the logical relationships between the different notions of rationalizability involving, for example, the transitivity, quasi-transitivity, or acyclicity of the rationalizing relation. Furthermore, we discuss sufficient conditions and necessary conditions for rational choice on arbitrary domains. Transitive, quasi-transitive, and acyclical rationalizability are fully characterized for domains that contain all singletons and all two-element subsets of the universal set.     

Arrow��s theorem and max-star transitivity

In the literature on social choice with fuzzy preferences, a central question is how to represent the transitivity of a fuzzy binary relation. Arguably the most general way of doing this is to assume a form of transitivity called max-star transitivity. The star operator in this formulation is commonly taken to be a triangular norm. The familiar max- min transitivity condition is a member of this family, but there are infinitely many others. Restricting attention to fuzzy aggregation rules that satisfy counterparts of unanimity and independence of irrelevant alternatives, we characterise the set of triangular norms that permit preference aggregation to be non-dictatorial. This set contains all and only those norms that contain a zero divisor.     

Special majority rules necessary and sufficient condition for quasi-transitivity with quasi-transitive individual preferences

A condition on preferences called strict Latin Square partial agreement is introduced and is shown to be necessary and sufficient for quasi-transitivity of the social weak preference relation generated by any special majority rule, under the assumption that individual preferences themselves are quasi-transitive.     

On continuity of incomplete preferences

A weak (strict) preference relation is continuous if it has a closed (open) graph; it is hemicontinuous if its upper and lower contour sets are closed (open). If preferences are complete these four conditions are equivalent. Without completeness continuity in each case is stronger than hemicontinuity. This paper provides general characterizations of continuity in terms of hemicontinuity for weak preferences that are modeled as (possibly incomplete) preorders and for strict preferences that are modeled as strict partial orders. Some behavioral implications associated with the two approaches are also discussed.     

Factorization of fuzzy preferences

In the ordinary framework, the factorization of a weak preference relation into a strict preference relation and an indifference relation is unique. However, in fuzzy set theory, the intersection and the union of fuzzy sets can be represented different ways. Furthermore, some equivalent properties in the ordinary case have generalizations in the fuzzy framework that may be not equivalent. For these reasons there exist in the literature several factorizations of a fuzzy weak preference relation. In this paper we obtain and characterize different factorizations of fuzzy weak preference relations by means of two courses of action which are equivalent in the ordinary framework: axioms and definitions of strict preference and indifference.This work is partially financed by the Junta de Castilla y León (Consejería de Educación y Cultura, Proyecto VA057/02), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Plan Nacional de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica (I+D+I) (Proyecto BEC2001-2253) and ERDF. I am indebted to José Luis García-Lapresta and an anonymous referee for his helpful comments.     

Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation

In response to recent work on the aggregation of individual judgments on logically connected propositions into collective judgments, it is often asked whether judgment aggregation is a special case of Arrowian preference aggregation. We argue for the converse claim. After proving two impossibility theorems on judgment aggregation (using “systematicity” and “independence” conditions, respectively), we construct an embedding of preference aggregation into judgment aggregation and prove Arrow’s theorem (stated for strict preferences) as a corollary of our second result. Although we thereby provide a new proof of Arrow’s theorem, our main aim is to identify the analogue of Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation, to clarify the relation between judgment and preference aggregation, and to illustrate the generality of the judgment aggregation model.     

Ranking opportunity sets on the basis of their freedom of choice and their ability to satisfy preferences: A difficulty

This paper examines a possibility of enlarging the domain of definition of individual preferences suggested by the recent literature on freedom of choice. More specifically, the possibility for an individual to have preferences that depend upon both the opportunity set that she faces and the particular alternative that she chooses from that set is considered. Even more specifically, the possibility for these preferences to value freedom of choice, as defined by the set theoretic relation of inclusion, while being consistent, in a certain sense, with the existence of a preference ordering over the options contained in opportunity sets is investigated. It is shown in the paper that a necessary condition for the existence of any transitive extended preferences of this type is for freedom of choice to be given no intrinsic importance. Received: 22 November 1995 / Accepted: 11 January 1997     

Free triples,large indifference classes and the majority rule

We study classes of voting situations where agents may exhibit a systematic inability to distinguish between the elements of certain sets of alternatives. These sets of alternatives may differ from voter to voter, thus resulting in personalized families of preferences. We study the properties of the majority relation when defined on restricted domains that are the cartesian product of preference families, each one reflecting the corresponding agent’s objective indifferences, and otherwise allowing for all possible (strict) preference relations among alternatives. We present necessary and sufficient conditions on the preference domains of this type, guaranteeing that majority rule is quasi-transitive and thus the existence of Condorcet winners at any profile in the domain, and for any finite subset of alternatives. Finally, we compare our proposed restrictions with others in the literature, to conclude that they are independent of any previously discussed domain restriction.     

Fuzzy preferences and Arrow-type problems in social choice

There are alternative ways of decomposing a given fuzzy weak preference relation into its antisymmetric and symmetric components. In this paper I have provided support to one among these alternative specifications. It is shown that on this specification the fuzzy analogue of the General Possibility Theorem is valid even when the transitivity restrictions on the individual and the social preference relations are relatively weak. In the special case where the individual preference relations are exact but the social preference relation is permitted to be fuzzy it is possible to distinguish between different degrees of power of the dictator. This power increases with the strength of the transitivity requirement.For comments on an earlier version of the paper I am indebted to an anonymous referee, an anonymous member of the Board of Editors and to participants in the 1991 Annual Conference of the Indian Econometric Society at North Bengal University, India. However, I retain sole responsibility for any error(s) that the paper may contain.     

Aggregation of individuals' preference intensities into social preference intensity

A result of John Harsanyi concerns the aggregation of individuals' preferences into social preferences. The result states that if the individuals in a society and the society as a whole have preference relations that compare probability distributions on a set of outcomes, and the preference relations satisfy expected-utility conditions and Pareto conditions, then a utility function for the social preference relation is a positive affine function of utility functions for the individuals' preference relations. This paper presents an analogous result for preference relations that denote intensity of preference, i.e., preference relations that compare exchanges of outcomes. This approach avoids the difficulties of requiring that the individuals in the society have common beliefs regarding uncertainty. Received: 14 October 1996 / Accepted: 4 September 1997     

Hansson’s theorem for generalized social welfare functions: an extension

 Hansson (1969) sets forth four conditions satisfied by no generalized social welfare function (GSWF), a mapping from profiles of individual preferences to arbitrary social preference relations. Though transitivity is not imposed on social preferences, one of Hansson’s conditions requires that socially maximal alternatives always exist. Of course, this condition is not satisfied by the majority GSWF. We prove a generalization of Hansson’s theorem that requires the existence of maximal alternatives only in very special cases. Our result applies to the majority GSWF and a large class of other GSWFs that sometimes produce no maximal alternatives. Received: 10 July 1995/Accepted: 4 March 1996     

Collective choice rules and collective rationality: a unified method of characterizations

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between collective rationality and permissible collective choice rules using a unified approach inspired by Bossert and Suzumura (J Econ Theory 138:311–320, 2008). We consider collective choice rules satisfying four axioms: unrestricted domain, strong Pareto, anonymity, and neutrality. A number of new classes of collective choice rules as well as the Pareto and Pareto extension rules are characterized under various concepts of collective rationality: acyclicity, transitivity, quasi-transitivity, semi-transitivity, and the interval order property. Further, new concepts of collective rationality, K-term acyclicity and K-term consistency, are proposed and the corresponding characterizations are provided.     

A theory of how intransitive consumers make decisions

An assumption of transitivity is required for the existence of the utility function of classical economics. However, as argued in the first section, if acquiring and organizing information is costly, rational behavior may require that preferences be intransitive. One might therefore predict that this assumption will often be violated, and evidence is presented that this is the case. We go on to develop a model of preference which does not require an assumption of transitivity, and which can be readily implemented empirically using data on paired comparisons. Using a set of intransitivities, and the forecasting ability of our proposed model is compared with alternatives.     

General concepts of value restriction and preference majority

Regenwetter and Grofman [17] offer a probabilistic generalization of Sen's [25, 27] classic value restriction condition when individual preferences are linear orders. They provide necessary and sufficient conditions for transitive majority preferences on linear orders. They call these conditions net value restriction and net preference majority. We study parallel generalizations for general binary relations. In general, neither net value restriction nor net preference majority is necessary for transitive majority preferences. Net value restriction is sufficient for transitive strict majority preferences, but not sufficient for transitive weak majority preferences. Net majority is sufficient for transitive majorities only if the preference relation with a net majority is a weak order. An application of our results to four U.S. National Election Study data sets reveals, in each case, transitive majorities despite a violation of Sen's original value restriction condition. We thank the National Science Foundation for funding this collaborative research through NSF grants SBR 97-30076 to Regenwetter and SBR 97-30578 to Grofman and Marley. We are indebted to the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) for access to the 1968, 1980, 1992 and 1996 U.S. National Election Study (NES) data. We thank Mark Berger for helping us with the necessary data extraction. We are grateful to the action editor and the referees for extensive and helpful comments. Most of this work was carried out while the first author was a faculty member at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, which has generously supported our collaboration. Marley was a fellow at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg, Germany, during the paper's completion.     

Acyclic sets of linear orders

 A set of linear orders on {1,2, ℕ, n} is acyclic if no three of its orders have an embedded permutation 3-cycle {abc, cab, bca}. Let f (n) be the maximum cardinality of an acyclic set of linear orders on {1,2, ℕ, n}. The problem of determining f (n) has interested social choice theorists for many years because it is the greatest number of linear orders on a set of n alternatives that guarantees transitivity of majority preferences when every voter in an arbitrary finite set has any one of those orders as his or her preference order. This paper gives improved lower and upper bounds for f (n). We note that f (5)=20 and that all maximum acyclic sets at n=4, 5 are generated by an “alternating scheme.” This procedure becomes suboptimal at least by n=16, where a “replacement scheme” overtakes it. The presently-best large-n lower bound is approximately f (n)≥(2.1708) ⁿ . Received: 5 April 1995/Accepted: 10 November 1995     

Equity, continuity, and myopia: A generalization of Diamond’s impossibility theorem

 We consider social preferences over infinite horizon intergenerational consumption paths. We use the Mackey topology to define continuity of social preferences. Our main objective is to generalize one of Diamond’s impossibility theorems. First, we show that the trivial preference relation is the only asymmetric social preference relation satisfying equity and continuity. Second, we compare Campbell’s impossibility theorem with ours. Finally we use an order-based notion of myopia and establish another impossibility result. Received: 26 August 1994/Accepted: 5 June 1996     

Characterizing uncertainty aversion through preference for mixtures

Uncertainty aversion is often modelled as (strict) quasi-concavity of preferences over uncertain acts. A theory of uncertainty aversion may be characterized by the pairs of acts for which strict preference for a mixture between them is permitted. This paper provides such a characterization for two leading representations of uncertainty averse preferences; those of Schmeidler [24] (Choquet expected utility or CEU) and of Gilboa and Schmeidler [16] (maxmin expected utility with a non-unique prior or MMEU). This characterization clarifies the relation between the two theories. Received: 20 February 1998/Accepted: 25 March 1999     

Aggregation of coarse preferences

We consider weak preference orderings over a set A _n of n alternatives. An individual preference is of refinement?≤n if it first partitions A _n into ? subsets of `tied' alternatives, and then ranks these subsets within a linear ordering. When ?<n, preferences are coarse. It is shown that, if the refinement of preferences does not exceed ?, a super majority rule (within non-abstaining voters) with rate 1− 1/? is necessary and sufficient to rule out Condorcet cycles of any length. It is argued moreover how the coarser the individual preferences, (1) the smaller the rate of super majority necessary to rule out cycles `in probability'; (2) the more probable the pairwise comparisons of alternatives, for any given super majority rule. Received: 29 June 1999/Accepted: 25 February 2000