An order-oriented approach to scoring hesitant fuzzy elements

Scoring functions are used to represent the relevance of individual documents. In modern information retrieval or recommendation systems, they are often learned from data and play a pivotal role in ranking sets of documents or items in a way that maximizes utility to a query or user. With the recent interest in algorithmic fairness, the success of scoring has naturally led to methods that learn scores that simultaneously trade off fairness and utility. In this work, we show that in stark contrast with utility-centric objectives, scoring is sub-optimal in achieving all utility-fairness trade-offs. We establish this with a series of counter-examples with a generic fairness formulation. We show that the issue persists whether we have a deterministic scoring function or a randomized one, or whether we measure fairness at the scope of a single query or across multiple queries. On the positive side, we empirically demonstrate that semi-greedy post-processing has the potential to achieve much better trade-offs, often approaching the ideal of exhaustive post-processing in a tractable way.

Decision-making in real applications is often affected by vagueness, incomplete information, heterogeneous data, and conflicting expert opinions. This survey reviews uncertainty-aware multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and organizes the field into a concise, task-oriented taxonomy. We summarize problem-level settings (discrete, group/consensus, dynamic, multi-stage, multi-level, multiagent, and multi-scenario), weight elicitation (subjective and objective schemes under fuzzy/linguistic inputs), and inter-criteria structure and causality modelling. For solution procedures, we contrast compensatory scoring methods, distance-to-reference and compromise approaches, and non-compensatory outranking frameworks for ranking or sorting. We also outline rule/evidence-based and sequential decision models that produce interpretable rules or policies. The survey highlights typical inputs, core computational steps, and primary outputs, and provides guidance on choosing methods according to robustness, interpretability, and data availability. It concludes with open directions on explainable uncertainty integration, stability, and scalability in large-scale and dynamic decision environments.

In passage reranking, response ranking and multi-document question answering, LLMs can score several candidate documents or responses together in one prompt, each still receiving its own score. Such scorers are selected on ranking quality, but their scores determine a decision: what a score threshold retains, a reader answers, or which chosen/rejected pair enters preference training. Because the candidates share that prompt, reordering them changes their scores. The same query over the same candidates should still yield the same decision. However, equal ranking quality does not imply equal decisions: on passage reranking, five trained scorers within 0.010 nDCG@10 retain sets that overlap by only 0.66-0.84 when reordered. No prompt-time change we test resolves that dependence: the only one that improves ranking quality does not measurably improve decision stability. We introduce order-consistency SFT (OC-SFT), which attenuates it in the weights by penalizing disagreement between a candidate's scores across orderings. It holds ranking quality and leads every decision-stability measure among trained scorers on all three tasks. It is also more stable on 12 base models than order-averaged distillation, which trains on labels averaged across permutations. One OC-SFT permutation retains sets that overlap more than ten averaged off-the-shelf permutations. A comparison of such scorers should therefore report what a threshold retains and a reader answers, not ranking quality alone. Code is available at https://github.com/thomsonreuters/presentation-dependence.