The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact

References

• Abbas AE (2010) Constructing multiattribute utility functions for decision analysis. Hasenbein JJ, ed. Risk and Optimization in an Uncertain World. INFORMS TutORials in Operations Research (INFORMS, Catonsville, MD), 62–98.Link, Google Scholar
• Abbas AE, Bell DE (2011) One-switch independence for multiattribute utility functions. Oper. Res. 59(3):764–771.Link, Google Scholar
• Abbas AE, Howard RA (2005) Attribute dominance utility. Decision Anal. 2(4):185–206.Link, Google Scholar
• Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, Paraschiv C (2007) Loss aversion under prospect theory: A parameter-free measurement. Management Sci. 53(10):1659–1674.Link, Google Scholar
• Aleskerov F, Bouyssou D, Monjardet B (2007) Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference (Springer, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Anderson RM, Clemen R (2013) Toward an improved methodology to construct and reconcile decision analytic preference judgments. Decision Anal. 10(2):121–134.Link, Google Scholar
• Arrow KJ (2012) Social Choice and Individual Values (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Avineri E (2006) The effect of reference point on stochastic network equilibrium. Transportation Sci. 40(4):409–420.Link, Google Scholar
• Aziz H, Brill M, Conitzer V, Elkind E, Freeman R, Walsh T (2017) Justified representation in approval-based committee voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 48(2):461–485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Bleichrodt H, Cillo A (2015) A tailor-made test of intransitive choice. Oper. Res. 63(1):198–211.Link, Google Scholar
• Baillon A, Liu N, van Dolder D (2017) Comparing uncertainty aversion toward different sources. Theory Decision 83(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bakır NO, Klutke GA (2011) Information and preference reversals in lotteries. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 210(3):752–756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barro RJ, Sala-i-Martin XI (1995) Economic Growth (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Bartholdi J, Tovey CA, Trick MA (1989) Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Soc. Choice Welfare 6(2):157–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bassi A (2015) Voting systems and strategic manipulation: An experimental study. J. Theoret. Politics 27(1):58–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Basu P, Liu Q, Stallaert J (2019) Supply chain management using put option contracts with information asymmetry. Internat. J. Production Res. 57(6):1772–1796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Heukamp FH (2012) Probability and time trade-off. Management Sci. 58(4):831–842.Link, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Villasís A (2010) Stability of risk preferences and the reflection effect of prospect theory. Theory Decision 68(1):193–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baucells M, Zhao L (2020) Everything in moderation: Foundations and applications of the satiation model. Management Sci. 66(12):5701–5719.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE (1982) Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Oper. Res. 30(5):961–981.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE, Fishburn PC (2001) Strong one-switch utility. Management Sci. 47(4):601–604.Link, Google Scholar
• Bell DE, Keeney RL (2009) Altruistic utility functions for joint decisions. Brams SJ, Gehrlein WV, Roberts FS, eds. The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order (Springer, Berlin), 27–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benade G, Nath S, Procaccia AD, Shah N (2021) Preference elicitation for participatory budgeting. Management Sci. 67(5):2813–2827.Link, Google Scholar
• Benati S, Rizzi R (2007) A mixed integer linear programming formulation of the optimal mean/value-at-risk portfolio problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 176(1):423–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benhabib J, Bisin A, Schotter A (2010) Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games Econom. Behav. 69(2):205–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berghammer R, Rusinowska A, De Swart H (2013) Computing tournament solutions using relation algebra and RelView. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 226(3):636–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berrada T, Detemple J, Rindisbacher M (2018) Asset pricing with beliefs-dependent risk aversion and learning. J. Financial Econom. 128(3):504–534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhatia S (2018) Decision making in environments with non‐independent dimensions. J. Behav. Decision Making 31(2):294–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Diecidue E (2015) Testing a class of models that includes majority rule and regret theories: Transitivity, recycling, and restricted branch independence. Decision 2(3):145–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Schmidt U (2010) Testing transitivity in choice under risk. Theory Decision 69(4):599–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Schmidt U (2015) The impact of learning by thought on violations of independence and coalescing. Decision Anal. 12(3):144–152.Link, Google Scholar
• Birnbaum MH, Yeary S, Luce RD, Zhao L (2016) Empirical evaluation of four models of buying and selling prices of gambles. J. Math. Psych. 75:183–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Pinto JL (2012) Conceptual foundations for health utility measurement. In The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, 2nd ed. (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK).Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Schmidt U, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Management Sci. 55(5):863–873.Link, Google Scholar
• Boakye J, Murphy C, Gardoni P, Kumar R (2022) Which consequences matter in risk analysis and disaster assessment? Internat. J. Disaster Risk Reduction 71:102740.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Booij AS, van de Kuilen G (2009) A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. J. Econom. Psych. 30(4):651–666.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bordley RF, Kirkwood CW (2004) Multiattribute preference analysis with performance targets. Oper. Res. 52(6):823–835.Link, Google Scholar
• Bordley R, LiCalzi M (2000) Decision analysis using targets instead of utility functions. Decisions Econom. Finance 23(1):53–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borgonovo E, Marinacci M (2015) Decision analysis under ambiguity. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 244(3):823–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borie D (2016) Lexicographic expected utility without completeness. Theory Decision 81(2):167–176.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borsuk ME, Mavrommati G, Samal NR, Zuidema S, Wollheim W, Rogers SH, Thorn AM, et al. (2019) Deliberative multiattribute valuation of ecosystem services across a range of regional land-use, socioeconomic, and climate scenarios for the upper Merrimack River watershed, New Hampshire, USA. Ecology Soc. 24(2):11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouton L, Castanheira M, Llorente-Saguer A (2016) Divided majority and information aggregation: Theory and experiment. J. Public Econom. 134:114–128.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bouyssou D, Pirlot M (2004) Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives: Traces, dominance, and numerical representations. J. Math. Psych. 48(3):167–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1978) Approval voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 72(3):831–847.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (1983) Approval Voting (Birkhauser, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Fishburn PC (2005) Going from theory to practice: The mixed success of approval voting. Soc. Choice Welfare 25(2):457–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Sanver MR (2009) Voting systems that combine approval and preference. Brams SJ, Gehrlein WV, Roberts FS, eds. The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order (Springer, Berlin), 215–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brams SJ, Gehrlein WV, Roberts FS (2021) Peter C. Fishburn (1936–2021). Soc. Choice Welfare 57(1):1–3.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandt F, Brill M, Harrenstein B (2016) Tournament solutions. Brandt F, Conitzer V, Endriss U, Lang J, Procaccia AD, eds. Handbook of Computational Social Choice (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 57–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Branke J, Corrente S, Greco S, Gutjahr W (2017) Efficient pairwise preference elicitation allowing for indifference. Comput. Oper. Res. 88:175–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Braziunas D, Boutilier C (2005) Local utility elicitation in GAI models. Bacchus F, Jaakkola T, eds. Proc. Twenty-first Conf. Uncertainty Artificial Intelligence (AUAI Press, Arlington, VA), 42–49.Google Scholar
• Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT (1993) Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment. Psych. Rev. 100(3):432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butler JC, Dyer JS, Jia J (2005) An empirical investigation of the assumptions of risk-value models. J. Risk Uncertainty 30(2):133–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer C, Weber M (1992) Recent developments in modeling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):325–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Candeal JC, Induráin E (2010) Semiorders and thresholds of utility discrimination: Solving the Scott–Suppes representability problem. J. Math. Psych. 54(6):485–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Candeal JC, Estevan A, García JG, Induráin E (2012) Semiorders with separability properties. J. Math. Psych. 56(6):444–451.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavagnaro DR, Pitt MA, Gonzalez R, Myung JI (2013) Discriminating among probability weighting functions using adaptive design optimization. J. Risk Uncertainty 47(3):255–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty S, Zoli C (2012) Stochastic dominance relations for integer variables. J. Econom. Theory 147(4):1331–1341.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charles-Cadogan G (2016) Expected utility theory and inner and outer measures of loss aversion. J. Math. Econom. 63:10–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen L, He S, Zhang S (2011) Tight bounds for some risk measures, with applications to robust portfolio selection. Oper. Res. 59(4):847–865.Link, Google Scholar
• Choi TM, Zhang J, Cheng TE (2018) Quick response in supply chains with stochastically risk sensitive retailers. Decision Sci. 49(5):932–957.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chorus C, van Cranenburgh S, Dekker T (2014) Random regret minimization for consumer choice modeling: Assessment of empirical evidence. J. Bus. Res. 67(11):2428–2436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Copeland AH (1951) A “reasonable” social welfare function. Mimeo, Seminar on Applications of Mathematics to the Social Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
• Cumova D, Nawrocki D (2014) Portfolio optimization in an upside potential and downside risk framework. J. Econom. Bus. 71:68–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Day B, Loomes G (2010) Conflicting violations of transitivity and where they may lead us. Theory Decision 68(1):233–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• de Almeida AT, de Almeida JA, Costa APCS, de Almeida-Filho AT (2016) A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250(1):179–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Deck C, Schlesinger H (2010) Exploring higher order risk effects. Rev. Econom. Stud. 77(4):1403–1420.Google Scholar
• Delquié P (2012) Risk measures from risk-reducing experiments. Decision Anal. 9(2):96–102.Link, Google Scholar
• Denuit M (2001) Laplace transform ordering of actuarial quantities. Insurance Math. Econom. 29(1):83–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diecidue E, Rudi N, Tang W (2012) Dynamic purchase decisions under regret: Price and availability. Decision Anal. 9(1):22–30.Link, Google Scholar
• Doignon JP (1987) Threshold representations of multiple semiorders. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 8(1):77–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doignon JP, Rexhep S (2016) Primary facets of order polytopes. J. Math. Psych. 75:231–245.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dong YLY, He Y, Chen X (2021) Preference–approval structures in group decision making: Axiomatic distance and aggregation. Decision Anal. 18(4):293–295.Link, Google Scholar
• Dowd K (2005) Measuring Market Risk, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Sarin RK (1979) Measurable multiattribute value functions. Oper. Res. 27(4):810–822.Link, Google Scholar
• Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, Wallenius J, Zionts S (1992) Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years. Management Sci. 38(5):645–654.Link, Google Scholar
• Elkind E, Faliszewski P, Skowron P, Slinko A (2017) Properties of multiwinner voting rules. Soc. Choice Welfare 48(3):599–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elster J, Hylland A, eds. (1989) Foundations of Social Choice Theory (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Endriss U (2013) Sincerity and manipulation under approval voting. Theory Decision 74(3):335–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Escobedo AR, Moreno-Centeno E, Yasmin R (2022) An axiomatic distance methodology for aggregating multimodal evaluations. Inform. Sci. 590:322–345.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evangelidis I, Levav J (2013) Prominence vs. dominance: How relationships between alternatives drive decision strategy and choice. J. Marketing Res. 50(6):753–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falmagne JC (2002) Elements of Psychophysical Theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Farinelli S, Tibiletti L (2008) Sharpe thinking in asset ranking with one-sided measures. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 185(3):1542–1547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farquhar PH (1975) A fractional hypercube decomposition theorem for multiattribute utility functions. Oper. Res. 23(5):941–967.Link, Google Scholar
• Farquhar PH (1984) State of the art—Utility assessment methods. Management Sci. 30(11):1283–1300.Link, Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Pharmacoeconom 7(6):490–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ferretti V, Grosso R (2019) Designing successful urban regeneration strategies through a behavioral decision aiding approach. Cities 95:102386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiegenbaum A (1990) Prospect theory and the risk-return association: An empirical examination in 85 industries. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 14(2):187–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiegenbaum A, Thomas H (1988) Attitudes toward risk and the risk–return paradox: Prospect theory explanations. Acad. Management J. 31(1):85–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiorini S, Fishburn PC (2004) Weak order polytopes. Discrete Math. 275(1-3):111–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1964) Decision and Value Theory (John Wiley and Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1965a) Independence in utility theory with whole product sets. Oper. Res. 13(1):28–45.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1965b) Independence, trade-offs, and transformations in bivariate utility functions. Management Sci. 11(9):792–801.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1966a) A note on recent developments in additive utility theories for multiple-factor situations. Oper. Res. 14(6):1143–1148.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1966b) Additive utilities with finite sets. Technical Paper RAC-TP-224, Research Analysis Corporation, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1966c) Evaluation of multiple-criteria alternatives using additive utility measures. Technical Paper RAC-TP-200, Research Analysis Corporation, McLean, VA.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1967) Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Sci. 13(7):435–453.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1968) Utility theory. Management Sci. 14(5):335–378.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1970a) Utility Theory for Decision Making (Wiley, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1970b) Intransitive indifference with unequal indifference intervals. J. Math. Psych. 7(1):144–149.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1973a) Bernoullian utilities for multiple factor situations. Cochrane JL, Zeleny M, eds. Multiple Criteria Decision Making (University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC), 47–61.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1973b) Interval representations for interval orders and semiorders. J. Math. Psychol. 10(1):91–105.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1974a) Exceptional paper—Lexicographic orders, utilities and decision rules: A survey. Management Sci. 20(11):1442–1471.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1974b) Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions on two attributes. Oper. Res. 22(1):35–45.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1977a) Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 33(3):469–489.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1977b) Mean-risk analysis with risk associated with below-target returns. Amer. Econom. Rev. 67(2):116–126.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1981) Subjective expected utility: A review of normative theories. Theory Decision 13(2):139–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1982a) Nontransitive measurable utility. J. Math. Psych. 26(1):31–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1982b) Foundations of risk measurement. II. Effects of gains on risk. J. Math. Psych. 25(3):226–242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1984) Foundations of risk measurement. I. Risk as probable loss. Management Sci. 30(4):396–406.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1988) Expected utility: An anniversary and a new era. J. Risk Uncertainty 1(3):267–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1989a) Foundations of decision analysis: Along the way. Management Sci. 35(4):387–405.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1989b) Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern. J. Risk Uncertainty 2(2):127–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC (1991) Decision theory: The next 100 years? Econom. J. 101(404):27–32.Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, Keeney RL (1975) Generalized utility independence and some implications. Oper. Res. 23(5):928–940.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, Kochenberger GA (1979) Two‐piece von Neumann‐Morgenstern utility functions. Decision Sci. 10(4):503–518.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, LaValle IH (1995) Stochastic dominance on unidimensional grids. Math. Oper. Res. 20(3):513–525.Link, Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, LaValle IH (1989) Choice Under Uncertainty. Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 19 (JC Baltzer, Basel, Switzerland).Google Scholar
• Fishburn PC, Rubinstein A (1982) Time preference. Internat. Econom. Rev. 23(3):677–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. J. Econom. Lit. 40(2):351–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gan X, Sethi SP, Yan H (2005) Channel coordination with a risk‐neutral supplier and a downside‐risk‐averse retailer. Production Oper. Management 14(1):80–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Georgiadis DR, Mazzuchi TA, Sarkani S (2013) Using multi criteria decision making in analysis of alternatives for selection of enabling technology. Systems Engrg. 16(3):287–303.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Gonzalez R, Wu G (1999) On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psych. 38(1):129–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gotoh JY, Konno H (2000) Third degree stochastic dominance and mean-risk analysis. Management Sci. 46(2):289–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Gotoh JY, Takano Y (2007) Newsvendor solutions via conditional value-at-risk minimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 179(1):80–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129(1):1–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn GJ, Kuhn H (2012) Value-based performance and risk management in supply chains: A robust optimization approach. Internat. J. Production Econom. 139(1):135–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halevy Y (2015) Time consistency: Stationarity and time invariance. Econometrica 83(1):335–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hamböck C, Hopp C, Keles C, Vetschera R (2017) Risk aversion in entrepreneurship panels: Measurement problems and alternative explanations. Management Decision Econom. 38(7):1046–1057.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harju M, Liesiö J, Virtanen K (2019) Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: Axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 275(1):167–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harman JL, Gonzalez C (2015) Allais from experience: Choice consistency, rare events, and common consequences in repeated decisions. J. Behav. Decision Making 28(4):369–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison G, Swarthout T (2016) Cumulative prospect theory in the laboratory: A reconsideration. Experimental Economics Center Working Paper 25, Georgia State University, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Harvey CM (1988) Utility functions for infinite-period planning. Management Sci. 34(5):645–665.Link, Google Scholar
• Harzing AW (2007) Publish or Perish. Accessed April 1, 2022, https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish.Google Scholar
• Hazelrigg GA (1998) A framework for decision-based engineering design. J. Mechanical Design 120(4):653–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hazen GB (2007) Adding extrinsic goals to the quality-adjusted life year model. Decision Anal. 4(1):3–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Hazen GB, Schwartz A (2009) Incorporating extrinsic goals into decision and cost-effectiveness analyses. Medical Decision Making 29(5):580–589.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He Y, Dyer JS, Butler JC (2013) On the axiomatization of the satiation and habit formation utility models. Oper. Res. 61(6):1399–1410.Link, Google Scholar
• He Y, Dyer JS, Butler JC (2014) Decomposing a utility function based on discrete distribution independence. Decision Anal. 11(4):233–249.Link, Google Scholar
• Herweg F, Müller D (2021) A comparison of regret theory and salience theory for decisions under risk. J. Econom. Theory 193:105226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hou F, Triantaphyllou E (2019) An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 275(2):570–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Igersheim H, Durand F, Hamlin A, Laslier JF (2022) Comparing voting methods: 2016 US presidential election. Eur. J. Political Econom. 71:102057.Crossref, Google Scholar
• INFORMS (2021) Peter C. Fishburn. Accessed March 10, 2022, https://www.informs.org/Explore/History-of-O.R.-Excellence/Biographical-Profiles/Fishburn-Peter-C.Google Scholar
• Jamison DT, Lau LJ (1973) Semiorders and the theory of choice. Econometrica 41(5):901–912.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janssen BM, Oppe M, Versteegh MM, Stolk EA (2013) Introducing the composite time trade-off: A test of feasibility and face validity. Eur. J. Health Econom. 14(1):5–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ (2021) A head-to-head comparison of the standard quality-adjusted life year model with the annual profile model. Value Health 24(5):707–713.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jia J, Dyer JS (1996) A standard measure of risk and risk-value models. Management Sci. 42(12):1691–1705.Link, Google Scholar
• Jia J, Dyer JS (2009) Decision making based on risk-value tradeoffs. Brams SJ, Gehrlein WV, Roberts FS, eds. The Mathematics of Preference, Choice and Order (Springer, Berlin), 59–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jia J, Dyer JS, Butler JC (2001) Generalized disappointment models. J. Risk Uncertainty 22(1):59–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jung JM, Sydnor S, Lee SK, Almanza B (2015) A conflict of choice: How consumers choose where to go for dinner. Int. J. Hospitality Management 45:88–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jutila ST, Baram G (1971) A user-oriented evaluation of a time-shared computer system. IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernetics 4:344–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katsikopoulos KV (2011) Psychological heuristics for making inferences: Definition, performance, and the emerging theory and practice. Decision Anal. 8(1):10–29.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1970) Assessment of multiattribute preferences. Science 168(3938):1491–1492.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs (John Wiley & Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1982) Decision analysis: An overview. Oper. Res. 30(5):803–838.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2013) Foundations for group decision analysis. Decision Anal. 10(2):103–120.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Vernik DA (2007) Analysis of the biological clock decision. Decision Anal. 4(3):114–135.Link, Google Scholar
• Keller LR, Simon J (2019) Preference functions for spatial risk analysis. Risk Anal. 39(1):244–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Keller N, Katsikopoulos KV (2016) On the role of psychological heuristics in operational research; and a demonstration in military stability operations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 249(3):1063–1073.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemeny JG (1959) Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88:577–591.Google Scholar
• Kilka M, Weber M (2001) What determines the shape of the probability weighting function under uncertainty? Management Sci. 47(12):1712–1726.Link, Google Scholar
• Kirkwood CW (2004) Approximating risk aversion in decision analysis applications. Decision Anal. 1(1):51–67.Link, Google Scholar
• Köbberling V, Wakker PP (2005) An index of loss aversion. J. Econom. Theory 122(1):119–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogler C, Kühberger A, Gilhofer R (2013) Real and hypothetical endowment effects when exchanging lottery tickets: Is regret a better explanation than loss aversion? J. Econom. Psych. 37:42–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kohli R, Jedidi K (2007) Representation and inference of lexicographic preference models and their variants. Marketing Sci. 26(3):380–399.Link, Google Scholar
• Krokhmal P, Zabarankin M, Uryasev S (2013) Modeling and optimization of risk. MacLean LC, Ziemba WT, eds. Handbook of the Fundamentals of Financial Decision Making: Part II (World Scientific, Singapore), 555–600.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuan CM, Yeh JH, Hsu YC (2009) Assessing value at risk with CARE, the conditional autoregressive expectile models. J. Econometrics 150(2):261–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Heath C, Wu G (2009) Goal-induced risk taking in negotiation and decision making. Soc. Cognition 27(3):342–364.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laslier JF, Sanver MR, eds. (2010) Handbook on Approval Voting (Springer, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laslier JF, Van der Straeten K (2008) A live experiment on approval voting. Experiment. Econom. 11(1):97–105.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughhunn DJ, Payne JW, Crum R (1980) Managerial risk preferences for below-target returns. Management Sci. 26(12):1238–1249.Link, Google Scholar
• Lejeune MA (2012) Game theoretical approach for reliable enhanced indexation. Decision Anal. 9(2):146–155.Link, Google Scholar
• Leonelli M, Smith JQ (2017) Directed expected utility networks. Decision Anal. 14(2):108–125.Link, Google Scholar
• Lichtendahl KC Jr, Bodily SE (2012) Multiplicative utilities for health and consumption. Decision Anal. 9(4):314–328.Link, Google Scholar
• Liesiö J, Vilkkumaa E (2021) Nonadditive multiattribute utility functions for portfolio decision analysis. Oper. Res. 69(6):1886–1908.Link, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein G, Prelec D (1992) Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quart. J. Econom. 107(2):573–597.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1982) Regret theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty. Econom. J. 92(368):805–824.Google Scholar
• Loomes G, Sugden R (1987) Some implications of a more general form of regret theory. J. Econom. Theory 41(2):270–287.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1988) Rank-dependent, subjective expected-utility representations. J. Risk Uncertainty 1(3):305–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1991) Rank-and sign-dependent linear utility models for binary gambles. J. Econom. Theory 53(1):75–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD (1996) The ongoing dialog between empirical science and measurement theory. J. Math. Psych. 40(1):78–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce RD, Fishburn PC (1991) Rank- and sign-dependent linear utility models for finite first-order gambles. J. Risk Uncertainty 4(1):29–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lwin KT, Qu R, MacCarthy BL (2017) Mean-VaR portfolio optimization: A nonparametric approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260(2):751–766.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyons SJ, Wien AH, Altintzoglou T (2019) Guilt-free pleasures: How premium and luxury influence regret. J. Product Brand Management 28(3):421–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCrimmon KR, Wehrung D, Stanbury WT (1988) Taking Risks (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Malczewski J, Jankowski P (2020) Emerging trends and research frontiers in spatial multicriteria analysis. Internat. J. Geographical Inform. Sci. 34(7):1257–1282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG, Shapira Z (1987) Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking. Management Sci. 33(11):1404–1418.Link, Google Scholar
• Mavrommati G, Borsuk ME, Howarth RB (2017) A novel deliberative multicriteria evaluation approach to ecosystem service valuation. Ecology Soc. 22(2):39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKee TA, McMorris FR (1999) Topics in Intersection Graph Theory. SIAM Monographs on Discrete Mathematics and Applications (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
• McKelvey RD (1986) Covering, dominance, and institution-free properties of social choice. Amer. J. Political Sci. 30(2):283–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meginnis K, Burton M, Chan R, Rigby D (2021) Strategic bias in discrete choice experiments. J. Environ. Econom. Management 109:102163.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mitchell VW (1999) Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. Eur. J. Marketing 33(1/2):163–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montiel LV, Bickel JE (2014) A generalized sampling approach for multilinear utility functions given partial preference information. Decision Anal. 11(3):147–170.Link, Google Scholar
• Montiel Olea JL, Strzalecki T (2014) Axiomatization and measurement of quasi-hyperbolic discounting. Quart. J. Econom. 129(3):1449–1499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morton A (2015) Measurement issues in the evaluation of projects in a project portfolio. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 245(3):789–796.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moulin H (1986) Choosing from a tournament. Soc. Choice Welfare 3(4):271–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niemi RG (1984) The problem of strategic behavior under approval voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 78(4):952–958.Google Scholar
• Nurmi H (1999) Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them (Springer, Berlin).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ogryczak W, Ruszczyński A (1999) From stochastic dominance to mean-risk models: Semideviations as risk measures. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116(1):33–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ovchinnikov S (2005) Hyperplane arrangements in preference modeling. J. Math. Psych. 49(6):481–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pachur T, Suter RS, Hertwig R (2017) How the twain can meet: Prospect theory and models of heuristics in risky choice. Cognitive Psych. 93:44–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavlov YP, Marinov EI (2018) Preferences, machine learning, and decision support with cyber-physical systems. Rodrigues JJPC, Gawanmeh A, eds. Cyber-Physical Systems for Next-Generation Networks (IGI Global, Hershey, PA), 222–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pedersen CS, Rudholm-Alfvin T (2003) Selecting a risk-adjusted shareholder performance measure. J. Asset Management 4(3):152–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pennings JM, Smidts A (2003) The shape of utility functions and organizational behavior. Management Sci. 49(9):1251–1263.Link, Google Scholar
• Pesce M, Terzi S, Al-Jawasreh RIM, Bommarito C, Calgaro L, Fogarin S, Russo E, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2018) Selecting sustainable alternatives for cruise ships in Venice using multi-criteria decision analysis. Sci. Total Environment 642:668–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pliskin JS, Shepard DS, Weinstein MC (1980) Utility functions for life years and health status. Oper. Res. 28(1):206–224.Link, Google Scholar
• Prelec D (1998) The probability weighting function. Econometrica 66(3):497–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1982) A theory of anticipated utility. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):323–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quiggin J (1994) Regret theory with general choice sets. J. Risk Uncertainty 8(2):153–165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (1998) Psychology and economics. J. Econom. Lit. 36(1):11–46.Google Scholar
• Raiffa H (1969) Preferences for multi-attributed alternatives. Memorandum RM-5868-DOT/RC, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
• Ramsey FP (1931) The Foundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays: Truth and Probability (Harcourt Brace, New York, NY). Reprinted in Kyburg and Smokler, 1964.Google Scholar
• Regenwetter M, Roberts F, Davis-Stober CP (2022) Peter Fishburn’s contributions to mathematical psychology. J. Math. Psych. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Roelofsma PH, Read D (2000) Intransitive intertemporal choice. J. Behav. Decision Making 13(2):161–177.Google Scholar
• Rohde KI (2010) The hyperbolic factor: A measure of time inconsistency. J. Risk Uncertainty 41(2):125–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roman D, Darby-Dowman K, Mitra G (2006) Portfolio construction based on stochastic dominance and target return distributions. Math. Programming 108(2):541–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roman D, Darby-Dowman K, Mitra G (2007) Mean-risk models using two risk measures: A multi-objective approach. Quant. Finance 7(4):443–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubio-Herrero J, Baykal-Gürsoy M (2020) Mean-variance analysis of the newsvendor problem with price-dependent, isoelastic demand. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 283(3):942–953.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandvik B, Thorlund-Petersen L (2010) Sensitivity analysis of risk tolerance. Decision Anal. 7(3):313–321.Link, Google Scholar
• Savage LJ (1954) The Foundations of Statistics (Wiley, New York, NY).Google Scholar
• Schneider M, Day R (2016) Target-adjusted utility functions and expected-utility paradoxes. Management Sci. 64(1):271–287.Link, Google Scholar
• Schoemaker PJ (1982) The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J. Econom. Lit. 20:529–563.Google Scholar
• Scholz M, Dorner V, Schryen G, Benlian A (2017) A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 259(1):205–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuwirth N, Reichert P, Lienert J (2012) Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 220(2):472–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sen A (1986) Social choice theory. Arrow KJ, Intriligator MD, eds. Handbook of Mathematical Economics, vol. 3 (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 1073–1181.Google Scholar
• Sen A (1999) The possibility of social choice. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(3):349–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM (2008) Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psych. Bull. 134(2):207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shkarlet S, Lytvynov V, Dorosh M, Trunova E, Voitsekhovska M (2019) The model of information security culture level estimation of organization. Palagin A, Anisimov A, Morozov A, Shkarlet S, eds. Internat. Sci.-Practical Conf. (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 249–258.Google Scholar
• Simon J (2016) On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions. Theory Decision 81(3):371–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon J, Kirkwood CW, Keller LR (2014) Decision analysis with geographically varying outcomes: Preference models and illustrative applications. Oper. Res. 62(1):182–194.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith JH (1973) Aggregation of preferences with variable electorate. Econometrica. 41(6): 1027–1041.Google Scholar
• Smith JE, Nau RF (1995) Valuing risky projects: Option pricing theory and decision analysis. Management Sci. 41(5):795–816.Link, Google Scholar
• Song B, Roy-Chowdhury AK (2008) Robust tracking in a camera network: A multi-objective optimization framework. IEEE J. Selected Topics Signal Processing 2(4):582–596.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spencer A, Robinson A (2007) Tests of utility independence when health varies over time. J. Health Econom. 26(5):1003–1013.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmer C (2000) Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J. Econom. Lit. 38(2):332–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stott HP (2006) Cumulative prospect theory’s functional menagerie. J. Risk Uncertainty 32(2):101–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sugden R (1993) An axiomatic foundation for regret theory. J. Econom. Theory 60(1):159–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suppes P, Krantz DM, Luce RD, Tversky A (1989) Foundations of Measurement, Vol. II: Geometrical, Threshold, and Probabilistic Representations (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Svenson O (1979) Process descriptions of decision making. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 23(1):86–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taheri E, Wang C (2018) Eliciting public risk preferences in emergency situations. Decision Anal. 15(4):223–241.Link, Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M (1995) Multi-attribute preference functions. Pharmacoeconom. 7(6):503–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trepel C, Fox CR, Poldrack RA (2005) Prospect theory on the brain? Toward a cognitive neuroscience of decision under risk. Brain Res. Cognitive Brain Res. 23(1):34–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1985) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Wright G, ed. Behavioral Decision Making (Springer, Boston), 25–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1989) Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Karpak B, Zionts S, eds. Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Risk Analysis Using Microcomputers (Springer, Berlin), 81–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4):297–323.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Unser M (2000) Lower partial moments as measures of perceived risk: An experimental study. J. Econom. Psych. 21(3):253–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vamplew P, Dazeley R, Foale C, Firmin S, Mummery J (2018) Human-aligned artificial intelligence is a multiobjective problem. Ethics Inform. Tech. 20(1):27–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd ed. (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Wakker PP (1989) Additive Representations of Preferences: A New Foundation of Decision Analysis (Springer, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wakker PP, Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM (2004) Anchor levels as a new tool for the theory and measurement of multiattribute utility. Decision Anal. 1(4):217–234.Link, Google Scholar
• Wallenius J, Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, Zionts S, Deb K (2008) Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Sci. 54(7):1336–1349.Link, Google Scholar
• Warren GJ (2019) Choosing and using utility functions in forming portfolios. Financial Anal. J. 75(3):39–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weber RJ (1995) Approval voting. J. Econom. Perspect. 9(1):39–49.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xie J, Zhou Z (2022) Patchwork constructions of multiattribute utility functions. Decision Anal. 19(2):141–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Escobedo AR (2021) A new binary programming formulation and social choice property for Kemeny rank aggregation. Decision Anal. 18(4):296–320.Link, Google Scholar
• Young HP, Levenglick A (1978) A consistent extension of Condorcet’s election principle. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 35(2):285–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zakamouline V (2014) Portfolio performance evaluation with loss aversion. Quant. Finance 14(4):699–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: An overview. Tech. Econom. Development Econom. 17(2):397–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhu W, Timmermans H (2011) Modeling pedestrian shopping behavior using principles of bounded rationality: Model comparison and validation. J. Geographical Systems 13(2):101–126.Crossref, Google Scholar