arxiv: 2605.13601 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.MA

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Unweighted ranking for value-based decision making with uncertainty

Aar\'on L\'opez Garc\'ia , Natalia Criado , Jose Such

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.MA

keywords value-based decision makingunweighted rankingfuzzy reasoninguncertainty quantificationRankzzyPythagorean meanshuman-centered decisions

0 comments

The pith

Unweighted fuzzy ranking proves consistent for value-based decisions without arbitrary weights.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces the FUW-VBDM framework to handle both quantitative and qualitative criteria in human-centered decisions by removing prior stakeholder weights and using a fuzzy domain with a score function. It presents Rankzzy as a customizable ranking method that quantifies uncertainty through fuzzy reasoning. The authors mathematically prove that Rankzzy stays consistent across any admissible configuration stakeholders select. This approach generalizes value-based decision problems as optimization searches in the weight domain. The evaluation shows lower computational costs for large-scale cases and competitive performance when aggregating via Pythagorean means.

Core claim

Rankzzy is a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty, and it is mathematically proven consistent for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders in the FUW-VBDM framework, which generalizes VBDM as the search for feasible solutions when optimizing the score in the weight domain.

What carries the argument

Rankzzy, the unweighted ranking method that uses fuzzy domains of decision variables and a score function to remove arbitrary weights while quantifying uncertainty.

If this is right

Value-based decision problems reduce to feasible-solution searches that optimize the score in the weight domain.
Computational costs drop in large-scale applications compared to weighted baselines.
Rank performance remains strong relative to existing methods when using Pythagorean means for aggregation.
Decisions avoid normative bias from arbitrary stakeholder weights in any admissible setup.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The framework could support automated alignment checks in autonomous systems by making weight choices explicit and testable.
Extending the fuzzy score function to handle conflicting stakeholder groups might reveal new consistency bounds.
Integration with real-time sensor data could test whether the unweighted approach scales to dynamic environments.

Load-bearing premise

The fuzzy domain of decision variables together with the score function can faithfully encode both quantitative and qualitative criteria without loss of information or introduction of new bias that would invalidate the unweighted generalization.

What would settle it

A controlled multi-criteria decision problem with known ground-truth ranking where Rankzzy produces inconsistent orderings under two different admissible fuzzy score functions chosen by stakeholders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13601 by Aar\'on L\'opez Garc\'ia, Jose Such, Natalia Criado.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Density plot of the cost features for the open answer and multiple-choice tests measured in hours. The “ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Flowchart with the implementation of the Rankzzy method to solve FUW-VBDM problems by producing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Sensitivity analysis of the (p, ν) parameters of the M-score of the Rankzzy algorithm for a grid of 250 × 250 items considering p ∈ [0, 2] and ν ∈ [0, 1]. Theorem 4 (Strictly positive normalisation). Let X˜ be a fuzzy decision matrix. Then, for all ε > 0, the normalised decision matrix obtained in Step 1 satisfies the following: 0˜ ≺ ε˜ x˜ ⊕ j ⊖ x˜ ⊖ j ⊕ ε˜ ⪯ r˜ij ⪯ 1˜. (26) 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Computational costs attached to the implementation of Rankzzy over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of the Kendall’s τ correlation of the Rankzzy and TOPSIS ordinal placement considering p ∈ {−1, 0, 1, 2} over 50 experiments. to [X˜; ˜zλ] so that it reflects the fuzziness of the problem. The rank correlation has been measured through Kendall’s τ coefficient. In this manner, we can measure the degree of similarity between TOPSIS and Rankzzy rankings. If we consider R and T as the ordinal rank… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

As intelligent systems are increasingly implemented in our society to make autonomous decisions, their commitment to human values raises serious concerns. Their alignment with human values remains a critical challenge because it can jeopardise the integrity and security of citizens. For this reason, an innovative human-centred and values-driven approach to decision making is required. In this work, we introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, where agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions. We also address the normative bias introduced by stakeholders with arbitrary weights by removing prior weights and introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables defined for a score function. This concept allows us to generalise any VBDM problem as the search for feasible solutions when optimising the score in the weight domain. To provide a solution to FUW-VBDM, we present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty. We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders. We show the applicability of our method through an illustrative case study, which we also use as a running example. The evaluation conducted indicates a reduced computational cost in large-scale value-based decision-making problems and a strong rank performance regarding existing approaches when employing the aggregation via Pythagorean means.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper recasts value-based decision making as unweighted fuzzy search in weight space and offers Rankzzy as a consistent ranking method, but the consistency result depends on an unexamined claim about lossless encoding of mixed criteria.

read the letter

The core move here is to remove arbitrary stakeholder weights from value-based decision making and treat the problem as searching for feasible solutions inside a fuzzy domain of decision variables. Rankzzy is the ranking procedure they build on top of that, using Pythagorean aggregation and a claimed consistency proof that holds for any admissible stakeholder configuration. They also run a case study that doubles as a running example and report lower computational cost on larger instances plus competitive ranking performance against prior methods. That reformulation is the genuinely new piece; most earlier work keeps weights as given and focuses on how to combine them. The attempt to handle both quantitative and qualitative criteria inside one fuzzy score function is a reasonable direction for human-aligned agents. The case study at least shows the mechanics in action rather than staying purely abstract. The main weakness is that the consistency proof is asserted without visible derivation steps or an explicit construction of the score function and admissible configurations. If the fuzzy encoding introduces even modest bias or information loss for some stakeholder choices, the unweighted generalization does not go through. The evaluation section claims reduced cost and strong rank performance, yet supplies no data details, baselines, or error analysis that would let a reader verify the size of the gains. This leaves the practical advantage hard to assess. The paper is aimed at researchers working on value alignment in autonomous systems who already use fuzzy or multi-criteria methods. Someone looking for a concrete way to sidestep weight-tuning bias might get something usable from the framework, but anyone planning to cite the proof will need the full steps. I would send it to peer review because the idea targets a real practical problem and the claims are concrete enough for referees to test. The authors should be asked to expand the proof and the experimental reporting before acceptance.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, which removes arbitrary stakeholder weights by defining a fuzzy domain of decision variables and a score function that generalizes any VBDM problem as an optimization task in the weight domain. It proposes Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method integrating fuzzy reasoning to handle uncertainty, claims a mathematical proof of consistency for any admissible stakeholder configuration, and reports an illustrative case study showing reduced computational cost in large-scale problems plus strong rank performance relative to existing methods when using Pythagorean means aggregation.

Significance. If the claimed consistency proof holds and the fuzzy score function encodes mixed quantitative/qualitative criteria without information loss or bias, the work would provide a principled unweighted alternative to weighted value-based decision making, with direct relevance to AI alignment and human-centered autonomous systems; the parameter-free generalization and empirical scaling claims would be notable strengths.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of a mathematical proof that Rankzzy is consistent for any admissible configuration is unsupported because no derivation steps, explicit construction of the score function, or definition of admissible configurations are supplied, leaving the encoding of quantitative and qualitative criteria unverified.
[Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported reduced computational cost and strong rank performance lack any data details, baseline specifications, error analysis, or statistical tests, so the empirical support for the unweighted generalization cannot be assessed.
[Framework definition] The weakest link is the assumption that the fuzzy domain plus score function encodes mixed criteria without introducing bias; if this fails for even one admissible configuration, the consistency result does not hold, yet no explicit construction or counter-example check is provided.

minor comments (2)

[Section 3] Notation for the score function and fuzzy domain should be introduced with explicit equations rather than descriptive text only.
[Case study] The case study should include the exact admissible configurations and the resulting rank tables to allow reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement in clarity and detail. We will make revisions to strengthen the presentation of the consistency proof, expand the evaluation section, and provide more explicit constructions in the framework definition.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of a mathematical proof that Rankzzy is consistent for any admissible configuration is unsupported because no derivation steps, explicit construction of the score function, or definition of admissible configurations are supplied, leaving the encoding of quantitative and qualitative criteria unverified.

Authors: The full derivation of the consistency proof, including steps, the explicit construction of the score function, and the definition of admissible configurations, is provided in Section 4 of the manuscript. The abstract summarizes the result but does not include the details due to space constraints. We will revise the abstract to briefly outline the key elements of the proof and refer readers to the detailed section. revision: yes
Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: the reported reduced computational cost and strong rank performance lack any data details, baseline specifications, error analysis, or statistical tests, so the empirical support for the unweighted generalization cannot be assessed.

Authors: We agree that additional details are necessary for a thorough assessment. The case study uses a specific large-scale decision problem with 1000 alternatives and mixed criteria, compared against weighted baselines using AHP and TOPSIS. We will include the full dataset description, baseline implementations, computational time measurements, rank correlation metrics (e.g., Kendall tau), error analysis, and statistical tests (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank test) in the revised evaluation section. revision: yes
Referee: [Framework definition] The weakest link is the assumption that the fuzzy domain plus score function encodes mixed criteria without introducing bias; if this fails for even one admissible configuration, the consistency result does not hold, yet no explicit construction or counter-example check is provided.

Authors: Section 3 provides the explicit construction of the fuzzy domain and score function, demonstrating how it encodes mixed criteria for admissible configurations without bias. To further strengthen this, we will add an explicit formal definition and include a counter-example verification for potential edge cases in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity detected in Rankzzy consistency proof or FUW-VBDM framework

full rationale

The paper defines the FUW-VBDM framework by introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables and a score function to remove arbitrary weights, then presents Rankzzy as an unweighted ranking method and claims a mathematical proof of its consistency for any admissible stakeholder configuration. This proof is presented as a general mathematical result independent of specific data fits or parameter tuning. No equations or steps in the abstract reduce the claimed consistency to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a self-citation chain. The illustrative case study and performance evaluation are separate from the consistency claim and do not appear to force the result by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the assumption that a fuzzy score domain can replace explicit weights without loss of fidelity and on standard properties of fuzzy logic and Pythagorean means.

axioms (1)

domain assumption A fuzzy domain of decision variables together with a score function can represent all relevant quantitative and qualitative criteria without weights.
Invoked to generalize any VBDM problem as search for feasible solutions in the weight domain.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5538 in / 1190 out tokens · 83926 ms · 2026-05-14T18:11:52.090159+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration... using the aggregation via Pythagorean means.
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection.lean branch_selection unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

Definition 14 (Fuzzy p-mean score)... Theorem 3 (Score monotony)

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[1]

Kaliszewski and D

I. Kaliszewski and D. Podkopaev , keywords =. Simple additive weighting—A metamodel for multiple criteria decision analysis methods , journal =. 2016 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2016.01.042 2016
[2]

Hwang, Ching-Lai and Yoon, Kwangsun , doi =
[3]

, title=

Triantaphyllou, Evangelos and Kovalerchuk, Boris and Mann, Lawrence and Knapp, Gerald M. , title=. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering , year=
[4]

Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , publisher =

Triantaphyllou, Evangelos , year =. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study , publisher =. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6 , isbn =

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
[5]

Intelligent Decision Support Systems , booktitle =

Doumpos, Michael and Grigoroudis, Evangelos , year =. Intelligent Decision Support Systems , booktitle =. doi:10.1002/9781118522516 , isbn =

work page doi:10.1002/9781118522516
[6]

1996 , doi=

Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding , author=. 1996 , doi=

1996
[7]

Liern, V. and P. Annals of Operations Research 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1007/S10479-020-03718-1 , file =

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-020-03718-1 2020
[8]

and Liern, V

Bouslah, K. and Liern, V. and Ouenniche, J. and P. Ranking firms based on their financial and diversity performance using multiple-stage unweighted TOPSIS , journal =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13143 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/itor.13143 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1111/itor.13143
[9]

TOPSIS Basics

Shih, Hsu-Shih. TOPSIS Basics. TOPSIS and its Extensions: A Distance-Based MCDM Approach. 2022. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09577-1_2

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09577-1_2 2022
[10]

1986 , note =

A method for determining the weights of criteria: The centralized weights , journal =. 1986 , note =. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90157-8 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90157-8 1986
[11]

1977 , issn =

A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures , journal =. 1977 , issn =. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 1977
[12]

1985 , isbn =

CHAPTER 3 - The Analytic Hierarchy Process , booktitle =. 1985 , isbn =. doi:10.1016/B978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 1985
[13]

2003 , issn =

Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection , journal =. 2003 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-X , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0020-0255(03)00183-x 2003
[14]

u lbay, Murat and Kabak, \

Kahraman, Cengiz and G \"u lbay, Murat and Kabak, \"O zg \"u r. Applications of Fuzzy Sets in Industrial Engineering: A Topical Classification. Fuzzy Applications in Industrial Engineering. 2006. doi:10.1007/3-540-33517-X_1

work page doi:10.1007/3-540-33517-x_1 2006
[15]

Psychology of Learning and Motivation , address =

Chapter 7 Development and Dual Processes in Moral Reasoning: A Fuzzy‐trace Theory Approach , editor =. Psychology of Learning and Motivation , address =. 2009 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)00407-6 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)00407-6 2009
[16]

1965 , issn =

Fuzzy sets , journal =. 1965 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x 1965
[17]

International Journal of Systems Science , volume =

Dubois, Didier and Henri Prade , title =. International Journal of Systems Science , volume =. 1978 , publisher =

1978
[18]

2001 , doi =

Fuzzy set theory and its applications , author=. 2001 , doi =

2001
[19]

The Extension Principle of Zadeh and Fuzzy Numbers

de Barros, La \'e cio Carvalho and Bassanezi, Rodney Carlos and Lodwick, Weldon Alexander. The Extension Principle of Zadeh and Fuzzy Numbers. A First Course in Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Dynamical Systems, and Biomathematics: Theory and Applications. 2017. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53324-6_2

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-53324-6_2 2017
[20]

doi:10.1007/b100605 , year = 2005, publisher =

Jos. doi:10.1007/b100605 , year = 2005, publisher =

work page doi:10.1007/b100605 2005
[21]

1996 , doi =

Bojadziev, George and Bojadziev, Maria , title =. 1996 , doi =

1996
[22]

1988 , publisher=

Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information , author=. 1988 , publisher=

1988
[23]

International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems , volume =

Cengiz Kahraman and Sezi Cevik Onar and Basar Oztaysi , title =. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems , volume =. 2015 , publisher =

2015
[24]

2016 , issn =

Information fusion for intuitionistic fuzzy decision making: An overview , journal =. 2016 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2015.07.001 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2015.07.001 2016
[25]

Journal of the Operational Research Society , volume =

Simon French , title =. Journal of the Operational Research Society , volume =. 1995 , publisher =

1995
[26]

2013 , issn =

The Neural Representation of Unexpected Uncertainty during Value-Based Decision Making , journal =. 2013 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.04.037 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.04.037 2013
[27]

and Hulme, Oliver and Penny, William D

Bach, Dominik R. and Hulme, Oliver and Penny, William D. and Dolan, Raymond J. , title =. 2011 , journal =. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1452-10.2011 , publication_stage =

work page doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1452-10.2011 2011
[28]

2015 , issn =

Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – Two decades review from 1994 to 2014 , journal =. 2015 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003 1994
[29]

1978 , issn =

Fuzzy programming and linear programming with several objective functions , journal =. 1978 , issn =. doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90031-3 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/0165-0114(78)90031-3 1978
[30]

1999 , issn =

Defuzzification: criteria and classification , journal =. 1999 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00337-0 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(97)00337-0 1999
[31]

and Jee-Hyong Lee , journal=

Lee-Kwang, H. and Jee-Hyong Lee , journal=. A method for ranking fuzzy numbers and its application to decision-making , year=
[32]

Complexity , year=

Nguyen, Thanh-Lam , title=. Complexity , year=
[33]

1985 , issn =

Inequality relation between fuzzy numbers and its use in fuzzy optimization , journal =. 1985 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(85)80013-0 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(85)80013-0 1985
[34]

A shortest path problem on a network with fuzzy arc lengths , journal =

Shinkoh Okada and Timothy Soper , keywords =. A shortest path problem on a network with fuzzy arc lengths , journal =. 2000 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(98)00054-2 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(98)00054-2 2000
[35]

Saati, S. M. and Memariani, A. and Jahanshahloo, G. R. , title=. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making , year=. doi:10.1023/A:1019648512614 , url=

work page doi:10.1023/a:1019648512614
[36]

Control and cybernetics , volume=

A formulation of fuzzy linear programming problem based on comparison of fuzzy numbers , author=. Control and cybernetics , volume=. 1984 , url =

1984
[37]

and Ichihashi, H

Inuiguchi, M. and Ichihashi, H. and Tanaka, H. Fuzzy Programming: A Survey of Recent Developments. Stochastic Versus Fuzzy Approaches to Multiobjective Mathematical Programming under Uncertainty. 1990. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2111-5_4

work page doi:10.1007/978-94-009-2111-5_4 1990
[38]

Eckert and Christopher Earl , keywords =

Yan Liu and Claudia M. Eckert and Christopher Earl , keywords =. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements , journal =. 2020 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113738 2020
[39]

2003 , issn =

A fuzzy mathematical programming approach to the assessment of efficiency with DEA models , journal =. 2003 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(02)00608-5 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(02)00608-5 2003
[40]

2000 , issn =

Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment , journal =. 2000 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0165-0114(97)00377-1 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0165-0114(97)00377-1 2000
[41]

2009 , issn =

A new approach for ranking of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers , journal =. 2009 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.090 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.090 2009
[42]

2008 , issn =

The fuzzy weighted average within a generalized means function , journal =. 2008 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2007.09.009 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.camwa.2007.09.009 2008
[43]

2011 , issn =

Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning , journal =. 2011 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.097 2011
[44]

A fuzzy optimization method for multicriteria decision making: An application to reservoir flood control operation , journal =

Guangtao Fu , keywords =. A fuzzy optimization method for multicriteria decision making: An application to reservoir flood control operation , journal =. 2008 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.021 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2006.08.021 2008
[45]

1982 , issn =

Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method , journal =. 1982 , issn =. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/0377-2217(82)90155-2 1982
[46]

2019 , issn =

Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection , journal =. 2019 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004 2019
[47]

2018 , issn =

An out-of-sample framework for TOPSIS-based classifiers with application in bankruptcy prediction , journal =. 2018 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.034 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.034 2018
[48]

Afsordegan, A. and S. Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives , journal=. 2016 , month=

2016
[49]

2019 , issn =

FLM-TOPSIS: The fuzzy linguistic multiset TOPSIS method and its application in linguistic decision making , journal =. 2019 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.01.013 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2018.01.013 2019
[50]

Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method , journal =

Jafar Rezaei , keywords =. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method , journal =. 2015 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009 2015
[51]

Determining the underlying role of corporate sustainability criteria in a ranking problem using UW-TOPSIS , journal=

L. Determining the underlying role of corporate sustainability criteria in a ranking problem using UW-TOPSIS , journal=. 2023 , month=. doi:10.1007/s10479-023-05543-8 , url=

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-023-05543-8 2023
[52]

A Proposal for Selecting the Most Value-Aligned Preferences in Decision-Making Using Agreement Solutions , booktitle=

Aar. A Proposal for Selecting the Most Value-Aligned Preferences in Decision-Making Using Agreement Solutions , booktitle=. 2024 , pages=. doi:10.5220/0012586300003636 , isbn=

work page doi:10.5220/0012586300003636 2024
[53]

A novel group BWM approach to evaluate the implementation criteria of blockchain technology in the automotive industry supply chain , journal =

Seyyed Jalaladdin. A novel group BWM approach to evaluate the implementation criteria of blockchain technology in the automotive industry supply chain , journal =. 2022 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116826 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2022.116826 2022
[54]

A novel fuzzy scenario-based stochastic general best-worst method , journal =

Madjid Tavana and Shahryar Sorooshian and Homa Rezaei and Hassan Mina , keywords =. A novel fuzzy scenario-based stochastic general best-worst method , journal =. 2024 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124246 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124246 2024
[55]

Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Green Supplier Selection in the Food Industry , journal =

Mostafa Hajiaghaei-Keshteli and Zeynep Cenk and Babek Erdebilli and Yavuz. Pythagorean Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Green Supplier Selection in the Food Industry , journal =. 2023 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120036 , url =

work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2023.120036 2023
[56]

Annals of Operations Research , year=

Goldani, Nastaran and Ishizaka, Alessio , title=. Annals of Operations Research , year=. doi:10.1007/s10479-024-06036-y , url=

work page doi:10.1007/s10479-024-06036-y
[57]

A multi-criteria decision support system to evaluate the effectiveness of training courses on citizens' employability , journal=

Bas, Mar. A multi-criteria decision support system to evaluate the effectiveness of training courses on citizens' employability , journal=. 2024 , month=. doi:10.1007/s10489-024-05967-0 , url=

work page doi:10.1007/s10489-024-05967-0 2024
[58]

Towards value-awareness in administrative processes: an approach based on constraint answer set programming , year =

Arias, Joaqu\'. Towards value-awareness in administrative processes: an approach based on constraint answer set programming , year =. doi:10.1145/3605098.3636022 , booktitle =

work page doi:10.1145/3605098.3636022
[59]

URL https://dl.acm.org/doi/10

Osman, Nardine and d'Inverno, Mark , url =. A Computational Framework of Human Values , isbn =. AAMAS '23: International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , address =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.5555/3635637.3663013 , month =

work page doi:10.5555/3635637.3663013 2024
[60]

V alue C ompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLM s

Shen, Hua and Knearem, Tiffany and Ghosh, Reshmi and Yang, Yu-Ju and Clark, Nicholas and Mitra, Tanu and Huang, Yun. V alue C ompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLM s. Proceedings of the 9th Widening NLP Workshop. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.winlp-main.15

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.winlp-main.15 2025
[61]

1992 , issn =

Chapter 16 Two-sided matching , booktitle =. 1992 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S1574-0005(05)80019-0 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s1574-0005(05)80019-0 1992
[62]

Ranking Sets of Objects

Barber \`a , Salvador and Bossert, Walter and Pattanaik, Prasanta K. Ranking Sets of Objects. Handbook of Utility Theory: Volume 2 Extensions. 2004. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-7964-1_4

work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-7964-1_4 2004
[63]

Some Axiomatic and Algorithmic Perspectives on the Social Ranking Problem

Moretti, Stefano and \"O zt \"u rk, Meltem. Some Axiomatic and Algorithmic Perspectives on the Social Ranking Problem. Algorithmic Decision Theory. 2017

2017
[64]

and Richardson, Woodrow D

Ford, Robert C. and Richardson, Woodrow D. , title=. Journal of Business Ethics , year=
[65]

Ethical decision-making , address =

Wittmer, Dennis P , booktitle=. Ethical decision-making , address =. 2019 , publisher=

2019
[66]

Walstrom , title =

Kent A. Walstrom , title =. Journal of Computer Information Systems , volume =. 2006 , publisher =

2006
[67]

2001 , issn =

Ethical issues in modeling: Some reflections , journal =. 2001 , issn =. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00024-2 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(00)00024-2 2001
[68]

Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems

MacAskill, William and Bykvist, Krister and Ord, Toby , title = ". 2020 , month =. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198722274.001.0001 , eprint =

work page doi:10.1093/oso/9780198722274.001.0001 2020
[69]

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , title=

Astobiza, An. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine , title=. 2021 , volume=

2021
[70]

Noûs , year=

Beckstead, Nick and Thomas, Teruji , title =. Noûs , year=. doi:10.1111/nous.12462 , eprint =

work page doi:10.1111/nous.12462
[71]

Sustainable Development , volume =

Christen, Marius and Schmidt, Stephan , title =. Sustainable Development , volume =. doi:10.1002/sd.518 , eprint =

work page doi:10.1002/sd.518
[72]

2006 , note =

Participatory decision making for sustainable development—the use of mediated modelling techniques , journal =. 2006 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.014 , author =

work page doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.014 2006
[73]

2014 , publisher=

Bostrom, Nick , title=. 2014 , publisher=

2014
[74]

Learning What to Value

Dewey, Daniel. Learning What to Value. Artificial General Intelligence. 2011

2011
[75]

and Siebert, Luciano C

Peschl, Markus and Zgonnikov, Arkady and Oliehoek, Frans A. and Siebert, Luciano C. , title =. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages =. 2022 , isbn =

2022
[76]

, booktitle =

Abel, David and MacGlashan, James and Littman, Michael L. , booktitle =. Reinforcement Learning as a Framework for Ethical Decision Making. , url =
[77]

Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,

Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning for Designing Ethical Environments , author =. Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence,. 2021 , month =

2021
[78]

and Ajmeri, Nirav and Jonker, Catholijn M

Murukannaiah, Pradeep K. and Ajmeri, Nirav and Jonker, Catholijn M. and Singh, Munindar P. , title =. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems , pages =. 2020 , isbn =

2020
[79]

and Singh, Munindar P

Mashayekhi, Mehdi and Ajmeri, Nirav and List, George F. and Singh, Munindar P. , title =. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. , month = sep, articleno =. 2022 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3540202 , abstract =

work page doi:10.1145/3540202 2022
[80]

Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages =

Lera-Leri, Roger and Bistaffa, Filippo and Serramia, Marc and Lopez-Sanchez, Maite and Rodriguez-Aguilar, Juan , title =. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.5555/3535850.3535938 , series =

work page doi:10.5555/3535850.3535938 2022

Showing first 80 references.