Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer science and decision theory

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews applications in computer science that decision theorists have addressed for years, discusses the requirements posed by these applications that place great strain on decision theory/social science methods, and explores applications in the social and decision sciences of newer decision-theoretic methods developed with computer science applications in mind. The paper deals with the relation between computer science and decision-theoretic methods of consensus, with the relation between computer science and game theory and decisions, and with “algorithmic decision theory.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abiteboul, S., Preda, M., & Cobena, G. (2003). Adaptive on-line page importance computation. In Proceedings WWW2003.

  • Aczél, J. (1990). Determining merged relative scores. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 150, 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aczél, J., & Roberts, F. S. (1989). On the possible merging functions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 17, 205–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aczél, J., Roberts, F. S., & Rosenbaum, Z. (1986). On scientific laws without dimensional constants. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 119, 389–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ailon, N., Charikar, M., & Newman, A. (2005). Aggregating inconsistent information: ranking and clustering. In: STOC 2005 (pp. 684–693).

  • Alchourron, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anand, S., Madigan, D., Mammone, R., Pathak, S., & Roberts, F. S. (2006). Experimental analysis of sequential decision making algorithms for port of entry inspection procedures. In D. Mehrotra, D. Zeng, H. Chen, B. Thuraisingham, & F.-X. Wang (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3975. Intelligence and security informatics, proceedings of ISI-2006. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderlini, L., & Sabourian, H. (1975). Cooperation and effective computability. Econometrica, 63, 1337–1369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, R., Borgs, C., Chayes, J., Feige, U., Flaxman, A., Kalai, A., Mirrokni, V., & Tennenholtz, M. (2008). Trust-based recommendation systems: an axiomatic approach. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on world wide web (WWW).

  • Andersson, A., Tenhungen, M., & Ygge, F. (2000). Integer programming for combinatorial auction winner determination. In: Proceedings 4th international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS00) (pp. 39–46).

  • Anghelescu, A., Boros, E., Fradkin, D., Lewis, D., Menkov, V., Neu, D., Ng, K.-B., & Kantor, P. (2002). Rutgers filtering work at TREC 2002: adaptive and batch. In D. Harman & E. Voorhees (Eds.), The eleventh text retrieval conference. Washington: US Department of Commerce (NIST special publication, SP500-251).

    Google Scholar 

  • Angluin, D., Hellerstein, L., & Karpinski, M. (1993). Learning read-once formulas with queries. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 40, 185–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arseneau, L. (1996). Optimal testing strategies for s,t-series parallel systems. Master’s thesis, University of Waterloo.

  • Asokan, N., Shoup, V., & Waidner, M. (1998). Fair exchange of digital signatures. In Eurocrypt’98 (pp. 591–606).

  • Aumann, R. (1981). Survey of repeated games. In Essays in game theory and mathematical economics in honor of Oskar Morgenstern (pp. 11–42) Zurich.

  • Aumann, R. J. (1987). Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica, 55, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aumann, R., & Sorin, S. (1989). Cooperation and bounded recall. Games and Economic Behavior, 1, 5–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aviv, Y. & Pazgal, A. (2005). Pricing of short life-cycle products through active learning. Preprint, Olin School of Business, Washington University, St. Louis.

  • Azari, D., Horvitz, E., Dumais, S., & Brill, E. (2003). A decision making perspective on web question answering. In Proceedings of the 19th conference on uncertainty and artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balabanovic, M., & Shoham, Y. (1997). Fab: Content based, collaborative recommendation. Communications of the ACM, 40, 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramaniyan, J. S., Garcia-Fernandez, J. O., Isacoff, D., Spafford, E. H., & Zamboni, D. (1998). An architecture for intrusion detection using autonomous agents. In Proceedings 14th IEEE conference on computer security applications, December 1998.

  • Baral, C., Kraus, S., Minker, J., & Subrahmanian, V. S. (1992). Combining knowledge bases consisting of first order theories. Computational Intelligence, 8, 45–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Noy, A., Deng, X., Garay, J. A., & Kameda, T. (1995). Optimal amortized distributed consensus. Information and Computation, 120, 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholdi, J. J., Tovey, C. A., & Trick, M. A. (1989a). The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6, 227–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholdi, J. J., Tovey, C. A., & Trick, M. A. (1989b). Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6, 157–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholdi, J. J., Tovey, C. A., & Trick, M. A. (1992). How hard is it to control an election. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 16, 27–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benaloh, J., & Yung, M. (1986). Distributing the power of a government to enhance the privacy of the voters. In ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (pp. 52–62).

  • Ben-Dov, Y. (1981). Optimal testing procedures for special structures of coherent systems. Management Science, 27, 1410–1420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2002a). Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences in the possibilistic logic framework. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning, KR’02 (pp. 421–432). San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., & Prade, H. (2002b). Possibilistic merging and distance-based fusion of propositional information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34, 217–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Or, M., Goldwasser, S., & Wigderson, A. (1988). Completeness theorems for non-cryptographic fault-tolerant distributed computation. In Proceedings of the 20th symposium on theory of computing (pp. 1–10).

  • Ben-Porath, E. (1990). The complexity of computing a best response automaton in repeated games with mixed strategies. Games and Economic Behavior, 2, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergemann, D., & Valimaki, J. (2007). Dynamic marginal contribution mechanism. Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 1616, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, July 2007.

  • Berman, P., & Garay, J. A. (1993). Cloture votes: n/4-resilient distributed consensus in t+1 rounds. Mathematical Systems Theory, 26, 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertino, E., Catania, B., Ferrari, E., & Perlasca, P. (2001). A logical framework for reasoning about access control models. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM symposium on access control models and technologies (pp. 41–52), Chantilly, VA.

  • Biasizzo, A., Zuzek, A., & Novak, F. (1998). Enhanced sequential diagnosis. In J. W. Sheppard & W. R. Simpson (Eds.), Research perspectives and case studies in system test and diagnosis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blin, M. J., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2001). Multicriteria methodology contribution to software quality evaluations. Software Quality Journal, 9, 113–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blum, A., Sandholm, T., & Zinkevich, M. (2002). Online algorithms for market clearing. In Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms (SODA) (pp. 971–980). San Francisco, CA, January 2002.

  • Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, J. R., Lipow, M., McLeod, G., & Merritt, M. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boros, E., & Kantor, P. (2007). Deceptive detection methods for optimal security with inadequate budgets: the screening power index (RUTCOR Research Report 26-2007). Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • Boros, E., & Ünlüyurt, T. (1999). Diagnosing double regular systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 26, 171–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boros, E., & Ünlüyurt, T. (2000). Sequential testing of series-parallel systems of small depth. In M. Laguna & J. L. Gonzáles Velarde (Eds.), OR computing tools for the new millennium, proceedings conference of the INFORMS computing society (pp. 39–74), Cancun, Mexico, 5–7 January 2000.

  • Boros, E., Elsayed, E., Kantor, P., Roberts, F. S., & Xie, M. (2008a, to appear). Optimization problems for port-of-entry detection systems. In H. Chen & C. C. Yang (Eds.), Intelligence and security informatics: techniques and applications. Berlin: Springer.

  • Boros, E., Fedzhora, L., Kantor, P. B., Saeger, K., & Stroud, P. (2008b, to appear). Large scale LP model for finding optimal container inspection strategies. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly. Preprint at http://rutcor.rutgers.edu/pub/rrr/reports2006/26_2006.pdf.

  • Boutilier, C. (1994). Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning, KR’94 (pp. 75–86). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C. (1999). Knowledge representation for stochastic decision processes. In M. J. Wooldridge & M. Veloso (Eds.), Artificial intelligence today. recent trends and developments (pp. 111–152). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C. (2000). Decision making under uncertainty: operations research meets AI (again). In Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI-2000 (pp. 1145–1150). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (1999a). Reasoning with condition ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, UAI’99 (pp. 71–80). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., Dean, T., & Hanks, S. (1999b). Decision-theoretic planning: structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11, 1–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M., & Sabata, B. (1999c). Continuous value function approximation for sequential bidding policies. In Proceedings of the 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence.

  • Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Doomshlak, C., Hoos, H., & Poole, D. (2004). Preference-based constrained optimization with CP-nets. Computational Intelligence, 20, 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1992). Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: a characterization of the net flow method. European Journal of Operational Research, 60, 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D. (1996). Outranking relations: do they have special properties? Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 99–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Perny, P. (1992). Ranking methods for valued preference relations: a characterization of a method based on entering and leaving flows. European Journal of Operational Research, 61, 186–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2002a). A characterization of strict concordance relations. In D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Słowiński, D. Vanderpooten, & Ph. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria—essays in honor of Bernard Roy (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Pirlot, M. (2002b). Non-transitive decomposable conjoint measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 677–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (1997). Ranking alternatives on the basis of preference relations: a progress report with special emphasis on outranking. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 77–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, Ph. (2000). Evaluation and decision models: a critical perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, Ph. (2006). Evaluation and decision models: stepping stones for the analyst. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R., & Dimopoulos, Y. (2004). Extended semantics and optimization algorithms for CP-networks. Computational Intelligence, 20, 219–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R. I., & Friedman, N. (2001). On decision-theoretic foundations for defaults. Artificial Intelligence, 133, 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R. I., & Tennenholtz, M. (1996). On the foundations of qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 13th national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI96 (pp. 1291–1296). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R. I., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). Modeling agents as qualitative decision makers. Artificial Intelligence, 94, 217–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R. I., & Tennenholz, M. (2000a). A near-optimal polynomial time algorithm for learning in certain classes of stochastic games. Artificial Intelligence, 121, 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brafman, R. I., & Tennenholtz, M. (2000b). An axiomatic treatment of three qualitative decision criteria. Journal of the ACM, 47, 452–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., & Taylor, A. D. (1995). An envy-free cake division protocol. The Americal Mathematical Monthly, 102, 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breese, J., Heckerman., D., & Kadie, C. (1998). Empirical analysis of predictive algorithms for collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the fourteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, Madison, WI, July 1998.

  • Brewer, P. J. (1999). Decentralized computation procurement and computational robustness in a smart market. Economic Theory, 13, 41–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brule, J. D., Johnson, R. A., & Kletsky, E. J. (1960). Diagnosis of equipment failures. IRE Transactions on Reliability and Quality Control, RQC-9, 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunken, J. N., Mager, R., & Putzke, R. A. (1989). NEMOS—the network management system for the AT&T long distance network. In Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE international conference on communications (Vol. 3, pp. 1193–1197).

  • Buczkowski, L. J. (1990). Database inference controller. In C. E. Landwehr (Ed.), Database security III: status and prospects, results of IFIP WG 11.3 workshop on database security. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterworth, R. (1972). Some reliability fault testing models. Operations Research, 20, 335–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldentey, R. A., & Bitran, G. (2002). An overview of models for revenue management. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 5, 203–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of State Internet Voting Task Force. (2000). A report on the feasibility of Internet voting, January 2000. http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/ivote/final_report.pdf.

  • Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., & Chong, K. (2003). Models of thinking, learning and teaching in games. American Economical Review Papers and Proceedings, 93, 192–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, B. P., Kadane, J. B., & Gelfand, A. E. (1998). Approaches for optimal sequential decision analysis in clinical trials. Biometrics, 54, 964–975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarti, A., Chazelle, B., Gum, B., & Lvov, A. (1999). Searching for an approximate nearest neighbor on the Hamming cube: a lower bound. In Proceedings of the 31st annual ACM symposium on the theory of computing (pp. 305–311).

  • Chang, C. L., & Slage, J. R. (1971). An admissible and optimal algorithm for searching and-or graphs. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 117–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaum, D. (1981). Untraceable electronic mail, return addresses, and digital pseudonyms. Communications of the ACM, 24, 84–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaum, D., Crépeau, C., & Damgård, I. (1988). Multiparty unconditionally secure protocols. In Proceedings of the 20th symposium on theory of computing (pp. 11–19).

  • Chen, X., Sim, M., Simchi-Levi, D., & Sun, P. (2007). Risk aversion in inventory management. Operations Research, 55, 828–842.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S. Y., Cox, L. A., & Sun, X. (1996). Least-cost failure diagnosis in uncertain reliability systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 54, 203–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cholvy, L., & Hunter, T. (1997). Fusion in logic: a brief overview. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1244. Proceedings of the 4th European conference on symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty, ECSQARU’97 (pp. 86–95). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomicki, J. (2003). Preference formulas in relations queries. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 28, 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christen, J. A., Mueller, P., Wathen, K., & Wolf, J. (2004). A Bayesian randomized clinical trial: a decision theoretic sequential design. Canadian Journal of Statistics, 32, 387–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Fischer, M. (1985). A robust and verifiable cryptographically secure election scheme. In Proceedings of 26th symposium on foundations of computer science. (pp. 372–382), Portland, OR, October 1985. New York: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. W., Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (1999). Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 243–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conen, W., & Sandholm, T. (2001). Minimal preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), workshop on economic agents, models, and mechanisms, Seattle, WA, 6 August 2001.

  • Cormode, G., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2004). What’s new: finding significant differences in network data streams. In INFOCOM04.

  • Cormode, G., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2005a). What’s hot and what’s not: tracking most frequent items dynamically. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, 30, 249–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormode, G., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2005b). An improved data stream summary: the Count-Min sketch and its applications. Journal of Algorithms, 55, 58–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormode, G., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2005c). Summarizing and mining skewed data streams. In SIAM conference on data mining (SDM).

  • Cormode, G., Korn, F., Muthukrishnan, S., & Srivastava, D. (2003). Finding hierarchical heavy hitters in data streams. In VLDB03 (pp. 464–475).

  • Costa Gomes, M., Crawford, V., & Broseta, B. (2001). Experimental studies of strategic sophistication and cognition in normal-form games. Econometrica, 69, 1193–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, L. H. (1988). Modeling and controlling user inference. In C. E. Landwehr (Ed.), Database security: status and prospects. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, L. A. Jr., & Qiu, Y. (1994). Optimal inspection and repair of renewable coherent systems with independent components and constant failure rates. Naval Research Logistics, 41, 771–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cramton, P., Shoham, Y., & Steinberg, R. (Eds.). (2006). Combinatorial auctions. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalakis, C., Goldberg, P. W., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (2006). The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. In Proceedings of 38th ACM symposium on theory of computing (pp. 71–78). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawid, A. P. (2002). Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. International Statistical Review, 70, 161–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, W. H. E. (1995). The sequence analysis and comparison bibliography. http://www.pitt.edu/~csna/day.html.

  • Day, W. H. E., & McMorris, F. R. (2003). Axiomatic consensus theory in group choice and biomathematics. Philadelphia: SIAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Degroot, M. H. (1974). Teaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Croce, F., Paschos, V. T., & Tsoukiàs, A. (1999). An improved general procedure for lexicographic bottleneck problems. Operations Research Letters, 24, 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delugach, H., & Hinke, T. H. (1994). Using conceptual graphs to represent database inference security analysis. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 2, 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demers, A., Keshav, S., & Shenker, S. (1989). Analysis and simulation of a fair queuing algorithm. In Symposium proceedings on communications architectures and protocols (pp. 1–12). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVries, S., & Vohra, R. V. (2003). Combinatorial auctions: a survey. INFORMS Journal of Computing, 15, 284–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Waegenaere, A., & Wakker, P. P. (2001). Nonmonotonic Choquet integrals. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 36, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • DIMACS. (2000). DIMACS workshop and working group meeting on bioconsensus, October 2000. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Bioconsensus/.

  • DIMACS. (2001). DIMACS tutorial and workshop on bioconsensus II, October 2001. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/BioconII/.

  • DIMACS. (2003). DIMACS workshop on applications of lattices and ordered sets to computer science, July 2003. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Lattices/.

  • DIMACS. (2004). DIMACS workshop on electronic voting—theory and practice. May 2004. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Voting/.

  • DIMACS. (2005a). DIMACS workshop on markets as predictive devices (information markets). February 2005. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Markets/.

  • DIMACS. (2005b). DIMACS workshop on yield management and dynamic pricing. August 2005. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Yield/

  • Dodis, Y., Halevi, S., & Rabin, T. (2000). A cryptographic solution to a game theoretic problem. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 80. Advances in cryptology—Crypto2000 proceedings (pp. 112–130). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doignon, J.-P., Pekeč, A., & Regenwetter, M. (2004). The repeated insertion model for rankings: missing link between two subset choice models. Psychometrika, 69, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domshlak, C. & Brafman, R. (2002). CP-nets: reasoning and consistency testing. In Proceedings of KR-2002 (pp. 121–132). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. (1985). Reasoned assumptions and Pareto optimality. In Proceedings of the 9th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI85 (pp. 87–90). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. (1989). Constructive belief and rational representation. Computational Intelligence, 5, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. (1990). Rationality and its roles in reasoning. In Proceedings of the 8th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI’90) (pp. 1093–1100). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. (1994). Reasoned assumptions and rational psychology. Fundamenta Informaticae, 20, 35–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. (2004). Prospects for preferences. Computational Intelligence, 20, 111–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., & Thomason, R. H. (1999). Background to qualitative decision theory. AI Magazine, 20, 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., & Wellman, M. P. (1991). Impediments to universal preference-based default theories. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 97–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., & Wellman, M. P. (1994). Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Decision-theoretic planning: papers from the 1994 spring AAAI symposium (pp. 69–75). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J., Shoham, Y., & Wellman, M. P. (1991). A logic of relative desire. In Methodologies for intelligent systems, 6th international symposium, ISMIS 91 (pp. 16–31). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, P. (2000). Applications and variations of domination in graphs. PhD thesis Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, September 2000.

  • Dreyer, P. A., Jr., & Roberts, F. S. (2008, to appear). Irreversible k-threshold processes: graph-theoretical threshold models of the spread of disease and of opinion. Discrete Applied Mathematics.

  • Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1995). Possibility theory as a basis for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI95 (pp. 1924–1930). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., & Prade, H. (2002a). On the limitation of ordinal approaches to decision making. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning, KR02 (pp. 133–144). San Francisco: Morgan Kauffman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., Fargier, H., Perny, P., & Prade, H. (2002b). Qualitative decision theory: from Savage’s axioms to non-monotonic reasoning. Journal of the ACM, 49, 455–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffuaa, S. O., & Raouf, A. (1990). An optimal sequence in multicharacteristics inspection. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 67, 79–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2000). Rank aggregation, spam resistance, and social choice. Preprint, theory.stanford.edu/muri/reports/1999-2000/cynthia2.ps.

  • Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings WWW10.

  • Elkind, E., & Lipmaa, H. (2005). Hybrid voting protocols and hardness of manipulation. In X. Deng & D.-Z. Du (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 3827. The 16th annual international symposium on algorithms and computation, ISAAC 2005 (pp. 206–215). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I., & Barron, G. (2005). On adaptation, maximization and reinforcement learning among cognitive strategies. Psychological Review, 112, 912–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, O., Hanks, S., Jiang, T., Karp, R. M., Madani, O., & Waarts, O. (1996). Efficient information gathering on the Internet. In 37th annual symposium on foundations of computer science.

  • Even, S., & Paz, A. (1984). A note on cake cutting. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 7, 285–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, J., Ishai, Y., Malkin, T., Nissim, K., Strauss, M. J., & Wright, R. N. (2001a). Secure multiparty computation of approximations. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 2076. Proceedings 28th international colloquium on automata, languages and programming (ICALP 2001) (pp. 927–938). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feigenbaum, J., Papadimitriou, C. H., & Shenker, S. (2001b). Sharing the cost of multicast transmissions. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 63, 21–41. See also Proceedings 32nd ACM symposium on theory of computing, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N. A., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software metrics, (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1985). Interval orders and interval graphs. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., & Roberts, F. S. (1989). Axioms for unique subjective probability on finite sets. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 33, 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C., Pekeč, A., & Reeds, J. A. (2002). Subset comparisons for additive linear orders. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27, 227–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, P. J., & Wallace, J. J. (1986). How not to lie with statistics: the correct way to summarize benchmark results. Communications of ACM, 29, 218–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, J., & Andre, D. (2000). Real-time reinforcement learning in continuous domains. In AAAI spring symposium on real-time autonomous systems.

  • Fortnow, L., & Kimmel, P. (1998). Beating a finite automaton in the big match. In Proceedings of the 7th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (pp. 225–234). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortnow, L., & Whang, D. (1994). Optimality and domination in repeated games with bounded players. In Proceedings 26th symposium on the theory of computing (pp. 741–749). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, R., Rietz, T. A., & Ross, T. W. (1999). Wishes, expectations, and actions: a survey on price formation in election stock markets. Jornal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 83–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D., & Vohra, R. (1997). Calibrated learning and correlated equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior, 21, 40–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, D., & Vohra, R. (1999). Regret in the on-line decision problem. Games and Economic Behavior, 29, 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fradkin, D., & Littman, M. (2005). Exploration approaches to adaptive filtering (DIMACS Technical Report 2005-01). DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.

  • French, J. R. P. Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freund, Y., Kearns, M., & Mansour, Y. (1995). Efficient algorithms for learning to play repeated games against computationally bounded adversaries. In Proceedings 36th symposium on foundations of computer science, November 1995.

  • Freund, Y., Kearns, M., Mansour, Y., Ron, D., Rubinfeld, R., & Schapire, R. (1996). Efficient algorithms for learning to play repeated games against computationally bounded adversaries. In: Proceedings of the thirty seventh annual symposium on foundations of computer science (pp. 332–341).

  • Freund, Y., Iyer, R., Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (2003). An efficient boosting algorithm for combining preferences. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 4, 933–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, E. J., & Shenker, S. (1998). Learning and implementation on the Internet. Department of Economics, Rutgers University, Working Paper Series.

  • Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. (1999). The theory of learning in games. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1991). Game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujioka, A., Okamoto, T., & Ohta, K. (1992). A practical secret voting scheme for large scale elections. In Auscrypt ’92 (pp. 244–251).

  • Fujishima, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y. (1999). Taming the computational complexity of combinatorial auctions: optimal and approximate approaches. In Proceedings of international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 548–553), Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Gallego, G., & van Ryzin, G. (1993). Optimal dynamic pricing of inventories with stochastic demand over finite horizons. Management Science, 40, 999–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallien, J., & Wein, L. M. (2000). Design and analysis of a smart market for industrial procurement. Working paper, Sloan School of Management, MIT.

  • Gallo, G., Grigoriadis, M. D., & Tarjan, R. E. (1989). A fast parametric maximum flow algorithm and applications. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18, 30–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garay, J., Jakobsson, M., & MacKenzie, P. (1999). Abuse-free optimistic contract signing. CRYPTO-99 (pp. 449–466).

  • Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors, P. G., & Makinson, D. (1994). Nonmonotonic inference based on expectations. Artificial Intelligence, 65, 197–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garey, M. R. (1972). Simple binary identification problems. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 21, 588–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garey, M. R. (1973). Optimal task sequencing with precedence constraints. Discrete Mathematics, 4, 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, T. D., & Lunt, T. F. (1991). Cover stories for database security. In C. E. Landwehr & S. Jajodia (Eds.), Database security V: status and prospects, results of the 5th IFIP WG 11.3 working group conference on database security (pp. 363–380). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, D., & Barnett, J. A. (1991). Optimal satisficing tree searches. In AAAI91 (pp. 441–445). Anaheim: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., & Rubin, D. B. (2003). Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I., & Samet, D. (1989). Bounded versus unbounded rationality: the tyranny of the weak. Games and Economic Behavior, 1, 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I., & Zemel, E. (1989). Nash and correlated equilibria: some complexity considerations. Games and Economic Behavior, 1, 80–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, I., Kalai, E., & Zemel, E. (1993). The complexity of eliminating dominated strategies. Mathematics of Operations Research, 18, 553–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldreich, O., Micali, S., & Wigderson, A. (1987). How to play any mental game—a completeness theorem for protocols for honest majority. In: Proceedings 19th symposium on theory of computing (pp. 218–229).

  • Goldsmith, J., Lang, J., Truszczyński, M., & Wilson, N. (2005). The computational complexity of dominance and consistency in CP-nets. In IJCAI ’05.

  • Goles, E., & Martinez, S. (1992). Statistical physics, automata networks, and dynamical systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, G., Greenwald, A., Marks, C., & Zinkevich, M. (2007). No-regret learning in convex games (Technical Report CS-07-10). Department of Computer Science, Brown University, October 2007.

  • Gonzalez, C., & Perny, P. (2004). GAI networks for utility elicitation. In Proceedings of KR-2004 (pp. 224–234). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch, M., & Labreuche, C. (2005). Fuzzy measures and integrals in MCDA. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 563–608). Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabisch, M., Murofushi, T., Sugeno, M., & Kacprzyk, J. (2000). Fuzzy measures and integrals. Theory and applications. Berlin: Physica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A., Friedman, E. J., & Shenker, S. (2001). Learning in network contexts: experimental results from simulations. Games and Economic Behavior, 35, 80–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigoriadis, M. D., & Khachiyan, L. G. (1995). A sublinear-time randomized approximation algorithm for matrix games. Operations Research Letters, 18, 53–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigoriadis, M. D., & Khachiyan, L. G. (1996). Coordination complexity of parallel price-directive decomposition. Mathematics of Operations Research, 21, 321–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, J. Y. (1974). Fault testing for a k−out-of-n system. Operations Research, 22, 1267–1271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, P., & Roberts, F. S. (1996). An impossibility result in axiomatic location theory. Mathematics of Operations Research, 21, 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, R. (2003). Combinatorial information market design. Information Systems Frontiers, 5, 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (1996). What is ceteris paribus preference? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 425, 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harstad, R. M. (1990a). Alternative common-value auction procedures: revenue comparisons with free entry. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 421–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harstad, R. M. (1990b). Dominant strategy adoption, efficiency, and bidder’s experience with pricing rules. Experimental Economics, 3, 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harstad, R. (2007). Endogenous competition alters the structure of optimal auctions. In: DIMACS workshop on auctions with transaction costs, DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, March 2007.

  • Harstad, R. M., Kagel, J. H., & Levin, D. (1990). Equilibrium bid functions for auctions with an uncertain number of bidders. Economics Letters, 33, 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartke, S. (2004). Graph-theoretic models of spread and competition. PhD thesis, Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University, October 2004.

  • Hassin, Y., & Peleg, D. (1999). Distributed probabilistic polling and applications to proportionate agreement. In Proceedings 26th international colloqium on automata, languages and programming ICALP (pp. 402–411).

  • Hazon, N., Aumann, Y., Kraus, S., & Wooldridge, M. (2008). Evaluation of election outcomes under uncertainty. In Proceedings of seventh international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS-08).

  • Herzog, S., Shenker, S., & Estrin, D. (1997). Sharing the “cost” of multicast trees: an axiomatic analysis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5, 847–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinke, T. H. (1988a). Inference aggregation detection in database management systems. In IEEE symposium on security and privacy, Oakland, CA.

  • Hinke, T. H. (1988b). Database inference engine design approach. In C. E. Landwehr (Ed.), Database security II: status and prospects, IFIP WG 11.3 workshop on database security. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinke, T. H., Delugach, H. S., & Wolf, R. P. (1997). Protecting databases from inference attacks. Computers and Security, 16, 687–708.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (1984). Influence diagrams. In R. A. Howard & J. E. Matheson (Eds.), Readings in the principles and applications of decision analysis. Menlo Park: Strategic Decisions Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E. J. (1987). Reasoning about beliefs and actions under computational resource constraints. In Proceedings of the 1987 workshop on uncertainty in artificial intelligence.

  • Horvitz, E. J. (1998). Continual computation policies for utility-directed prefetching. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 175–184). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E. J. (2001). Principles and applications of continual computation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 126, 159–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E., & Barry, M. (1995). Display of information for time-critical decision making. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 296–305). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E., Breese, J., & Henrion, M. (1988). Decision theory in expert systems and artificial intelligence. Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Special Issue on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 2, 247–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E., Cooper, G., & Heckerman, D. (1989). Reflection and action under scarce resources: theoretical principles and empirical study. In Proceedings of the eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1121–1127), Detroit, MI, August 1989. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E., Kadie, C. M., Paek, T. E., & Hovel, D. (2003). Models of attention in computing and communications: from principles to applications. Communications of the ACM, 46, 52–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyafil, L., & Rivest, R. L. (1976). Constructing optimal binary decision trees is NP-complete. Information Processing Letters, 5, 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ibraev, U., Ng, K.-B., & Kantor, P. (2002). Exploration of a geometric model of data fusion. In Proceedings of the 2002 conference of the American society for information science and technology.

  • Internet Policy Institute. (2001). Report of the national workshop on Internet voting: issues and research agenda (Technical report), March 2001.

  • Jackwerth, J. C., & Rubinstein, M. (1996). Recovering probability distributions from options prices. Journal of Finance, 51, 1611–1631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain, K., & Vazirani, V. (2000). Applications of approximation algorithms to cooperative game theory. In Proceedings of symposium on theory of computing.

  • Jakobsson, M. (1999). Flash mixing. In PODC ’99 (pp. 83–89).

  • Jakobsson, M., & Juels, A. (2000). Mix and match: secure function evaluation via ciphertexts. In Asiacrypt ’00 (pp. 162–177).

  • Jakobsson, M., Juels, A., & Rivest, R. L. (2002). Making mix nets robust for electronic voting by randomized partial checking. In USENIX security symposium (pp. 339–353).

  • Janowitz, M. (1986). Ordinal filtering in digital image processing. In E. Wegman & D. DePriest (Eds.), Statistical image processing and graphics (pp. 25–41). New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M., LaPointe, F.-J., McMorris, F. R., Mirkin, B., & Roberts, F. S. (Eds.). (2003). DIMACS series : Vol. 61. Bioconsensus. Providence: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jedrzejowicz, P. (1983). Minimizing the average cost of testing coherent systems: complexity and approximate algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, R-32, 66–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeh, G., & Widom, J. (2002). Scaling personalized Web search (Technical report). Stanford University.

  • Jennison, C., & Turnbull, B. W. (1999). Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. London: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joachims, T. (2002). Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D., Papadimitriou, C., Wigderson, A., & Yannakakis, M. (2000). Challenges for theoretical computer science. Report, June 2000. http://www.research.att.com/~dsj/nsflist.html.

  • Johnson, T., Cormode, G., Korn, F., Muthukrishnan, S., Spatscheck, O., & Srivastava, D. (2004). Holistic UDAFs at streaming speeds. In SIGMOD04.

  • Kadane, J. B. (1969). Quiz show problems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 27, 609–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., & Cassandra, A. R. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101, 99–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakade, S., Kearns, M., Langford, J., & Ortiz, L. (2003). Correlated equilibria in graphical games. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 42–47). San Diego: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalai, E. (1990). Bounded rationality and strategic complexity in repeated games. In T. Ichiishi, A. Neyman, & Y. Tauman (Eds.), Game theory and applications (pp. 131–157). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalai, E. (2004). Large robust games. Econometrica, 72, 1631–1665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, P. B., & Roberts, F. S. (2007). Monitoring message streams: algorithmic methods for automatic processing of messages. Jornal of Intelligence Community Research and Development. February 2007. See http://www.datalaundering.com/download/fredpoul.pdf.

  • Kazue, S., & Killian, J. (1995). Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme: a practical solution to the implementation of a voting booth. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 921. Advances in cryptology, EUROCRYPT’95 (pp. 393–403). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, M., & Mansour, Y. (2002). Efficient Nash computation in large population games with bounded influence. In Proceedings of UAI 2002 (pp. 259–266).

  • Kearns, M. J., & Singh, S. P. (2002). Near-optimal reinforcement learning in polynomial time. Machine Learning, 49, 209–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, M., Mansour, Y., & Singh, S. (2000). Fast planning in stochastic games. In Proceedings of UAI (pp. 309–316).

  • Kearns, M., Littman, M., & Singh, S. (2001). Graphical models for game theory. In Proceedings of the 17th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 253–260).

  • Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J. G. (1959). Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus, 88, 575–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny, J. G., & Snell, J. L. (1962). Mathematical models in the social sciences. New York: Blaisdell. Reprinted by MIT Press, Cambridge, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuth, D. C., Papadimitriou, C., & Tsitsiklis, N. (1988). A note on strategy elimination in bimatrix games. Operations Research Letters, 7, 103–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, D., & Megiddo, N. (1992). The complexity of two-person zero-sum games in extensive form. Games and Economic Behavior, 4, 528–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koller, D., & Megiddo, N. (1996). Finding mixed strategies with small supports in extensive form games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 73–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, S., & Perez, R. P. (2002). Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 772–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny, S., & Perez, R. P. (2005). Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links to social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 160, 785–802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppius, O. (2007). The need for speed: non-price considerations in auction design at the Dutch flower auctions. In DIMACS workshop on auctions with transaction costs, DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, March 2007.

  • Kowalski, R. (1969). Search strategies for theorem proving. In B. Meltzer & D. Mitchie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (Vol. 5, pp. 181–201). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. (1972). And-or graphs, theorem proving graphs and bi-directional search. In B. Meltzer & D. Mitchie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (Vol. 7, pp. 167–194). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kum, H.-C., Pei, J., Wang, W., & Duncan, D. (2003a). ApproxMAP: approximate mining of consensus sequential patterns. In Proceedings of the 3rd SIAM international conference on data mining, San Francisco, CA.

  • Kum, H.-C., Duncan, D., Flair, K., & Wang, W. (2003b). Social welfare program administration and evaluation and policy analysis using knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD) on administrative data. In Proceedings of the NSF national conference on digital government research (DG. O) (pp. 39–44).

  • LAMSADE. (2003). Constructive preference elicitation for multiple criteria decision aid (MCDA). Decision Aiding Research Area, LAMSADE, January 23, 2003. http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/mcda/siteTheme/p4.html.

  • Larson, K. (2006). Reducing costly information acquisition in auctions. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1167–1174). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, K., & Sandholm, T. (2000). Deliberation in equilibrium: bargaining in computationally complex problems. In Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 48–55). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, K., & Sandholm, T. (2001a). Bargaining with limited computation: deliberation equilibrium. Artificial Intelligence, 132, 183–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, K., & Sandholm, T. (2001b). Costly valuation computation in auctions. In TARK (pp. 169–182).

  • Lauritzen, S. L. (1996). Graphical models. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauritzen, S. L., & Nilsson, D. (2001). Representing and solving decision problems with limited information. Management Science, 47, 1238–1251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebanon, G., & Lafferty, J. (2002). Cranking: Combining rankings using conditional probability models on permutations. In Machine learning: proceedings of the nineteenth international conference.

  • Lehmann, D. (1996). Generalized qualitative probability: Savage revisited. In Proceedings of the 12th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, UAI96 (pp. 381–388). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. (2001a). Expected qualitative utility maximization. Games and Economic Behavior, 35, 54–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, D. (2001b). Nonmonotonic logics and semantics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 11, 229–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, E. (1988). Repeated games with stationary bounded recall strategies. Journal of Economic Theory, 46, 130–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, E. (1994). Finitely many players with bounded recall in infinitely repeated games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 390–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.-S., & Ramaswami, R. (1997). Automatic fault detection, isolation, and recovery in transparent all-optical networks. Journal of Lightwave Technology, 15, 1784–1793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J. (1986). Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence, 83, 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J., & Mendelzon, A. O. (1998). Merging databases under constraints. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7, 55–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linial, N. (1994). Game-theoretic aspects of computing. In R. J. Aumann & S. Hart (Eds.), Handbook of game theory with economic applications (Vol. II, pp. 1340–1395).

  • Linial, N., Peleg, D., Rabinovitch, Y., & Saks, M. (1993). Sphere packing and local majorities in graphs. In Proceedings of the 2nd ISTCS (pp. 141–149).

  • Littman, M. L., & Stone, P. (2005). A polynomial-time (Nash) equilibrium algorithm for repeated games. Decision Support Systems, 39, 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littman, M., Kearns, M., & Singh, S. (2002). An efficient algorithm for singly connected games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14, 817–823.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littman, M. L., Ravi, N., Fenson, E., & Howard, R. (2004). An instance-based state representation for network repair. In Proceedings of the nineteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 287–292).

  • Lobo, M., & Boyd, S. (2003). Pricing and learning with uncertain demand. Preprint, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.

  • Loehman, E., & Whinston, A. (1974). An axiomatic approach to cost allocation for public investment. Public Finance Quarterly, 2, 236–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, W. F. (1981). Applications of cooperative games to equitable allocations. In Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics (pp. 19–36). Providence: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madigan, D., Mittal, S., & Roberts, F. S. (2007). Sequential decision making algorithms for port of entry inspection: overcoming computational challenges. In G. Muresan, T. Altiok, B. Melamed, & D. Zeng (Eds.), Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on intelligence and security informatics (ISI-2007) (pp. 1–7). New York: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madigan, D., Mittal, S., & Roberts, F. S. (2008). Efficient sequential decision making algorithms for container inspection operations. Preprint, DIMACS Center, Rutgers University.

  • Mahadev, N. V. R., & Roberts, F. S. (2003). Consensus list colorings of graphs and physical mapping of DNA. In M. Janowitz, F.-J. Lapointe, F. R. McMorris, B. Mirkin, & F. S. Roberts (Eds.), DIMACS series : Vol. 61. Bioconsensus (pp. 83–95). Providence: American Mathematical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahadev, N. V. R., Pekeč, A., & Roberts, F. S. (1997). Effect of change of scale on optimality in a scheduling model with priorities and earliness/tardiness penalties. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 25, 9–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahadev, N. V. R., Pekeč, A., & Roberts, F. S. (1998). On the meaningfulness of optimal solutions to scheduling problems: Can an optimal solution be non-optimal? Operations Research, 46, S120–S134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, S., & van Ryzin, G. J. (2001a). Inventory competition under dynamic consumer substitution. Operations Research, 49, 646–657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, S., & van Ryzin, G. J. (2001b). Stocking retail assortments under dynamic consumer substitution. Operations Research, 49, 334–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maniquet, F. (2003). A characterization of the Shapley value in queuing problems. Journal of Economic Theory, 109, 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannor, S., Simister, D. I., Sun, P., & Tsitsiklis, J. N. (2004). Biases and variances in value function estimates. Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Faculty Research paper FRPS05-199, August 2004. Preliminary version: Bias and variance in value function estimation. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on machine learning, Banff, Canada, 2004.

  • Marcotorchino, P., & Michaud, P. (1981). Heuristic approach of the similarity aggregation problem. Methods of Operations Research, 43, 395–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality (RADC TR-77-369). Also in US Rome Air Development Center Reports NTIS AD/A-049 014, 015, 055, I, II, III, 1977.

  • McCallum, R. A. (1995). Instance-based utile distinctions for reinforcement learning with hidden state. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on machine learning (pp. 387–395). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaley, M. (2004). Report on DIMACS workshop on electronic voting—theory and practice. December 2004. http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/Voting/e-voting-final.pdf.

  • McGill, J., & van Ryzin, G. J. (1999). Revenue management: research overview and prospects. Transportation Science, 33, 233–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMorris, F. R., Mulder, M., & Roberts, F. S. (1998). The median procedure on median graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 84, 165–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMorris, F. R., Roberts, F. S., & Wang, C. (2001). The center function on trees. Networks, 38, 84–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megiddo, N., & Wigderson, A. (1986). On play by means of computing machines. In J. Halpern (Ed.), Reasoning about knowledge (pp. 259–274). Los Altos: Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirkin, B., & Roberts, F. S. (1993). Consensus functions and patterns in molecular sequences. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, 55, 695–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirrokni, V. S., & Vetta, A. (2004). Convergence issues in competitive games. In RANDOM-APPROX 2004.

  • Miyakawa, M. (1989). Criteria for selecting a variable in the construction of efficient trees. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 38, 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mizuta, H., & Steiglitz, K. (2000). Agent-based simulation of dynamic online auctions. In Winter simulation conference, Orlando, FL, December 2000.

  • Moffet, J. D., & Lupu, E. C. (1999). The uses of role hierarchies in access control. In Proceedings 4th ACM workshop on role-based access control (pp. 153–160), Fairfax, VA.

  • Mongin, P. (2000). Does optimization imply rationality? Synthese, 124, 73–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monma, C. L., & Sidney, J. B. (1979). Optimal sequencing via modular decomposition: characterization of sequencing functions. Mathematics of Operations Research, 4, 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, M. (1987). Security and inference in multilevel database and knowledge-base systems. In Proceedings SIGMOD ACM special interest group on management of data. New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgenstern, M. (1988). Controlling logical inference in multilevel database systems. In IEEE symposium on security and privacy, Oakland, CA.

  • Moore, A. W., Atkeson, C. G., & Schaal, S. (1995). Memory-based learning for control (Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-95-18). CMU Robotics Institute.

  • Mor, Y., & Rosenschein, J. (1995). Time and the prisoner’s dilemma. In Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems ICMAS-95 (pp. 276–292). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morisio, M., & Tsoukiàs, A. (1997). IUSWARE: a formal methodology for software evaluation and selection. IEEE Proceedings on Software Engineering, 144, 162–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morisio, M., Stamelos, I., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2002). A new method to evaluate software artifacts against predefined profiles. In Proceedings of the SEKE-02 conference (pp. 811–818). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. (1987). Equal or proportional division of a surplus, and other methods. International Journal of Game Theory, 16, 161–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. (1999). Incremental cost sharing: characterization by coalition strategy-proofness. Social Choice and Welfare, 16, 279–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H., & Shenker, S. (2001). Strategyproof sharing of submodular costs: budget balance versus efficiency. Economic Theory, 18, 511–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H., & Stong, R. (2002). Fair queuing and other probabilistic allocation methods. Mathematics of Operations Research, 27, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundici, D. (1989). Functions computed by monotone boolean formulas with no repeated variables. Theoretical Computer Science, 66, 113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. (1991). Game theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natarajan, K. S. (1986). Optimizing depth-first search of AND-OR trees (Technical report). IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.

  • Nilsson, N. J. (1971). Problem-solving methods in artificial intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naor, M., Pinkas, B., & Sumner, R. (1999). Privacy preserving auctions and mechanism design. In Proceedings 1st ACM conference on electronic commerce, Denver, CO, November 1999.

  • Neyman, A. (1985). Bounded complexity justifies cooperation in finitely repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Economics Letters, 19, 227–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, A. (1997). Cooperation, repetition, and automata. In S. Hart & A. Mas-Colell (Eds.), NATO ASI series F: Vol. 155. Cooperation: game theoretic approaches. (pp. 233–255).

  • Neyman, A. (1999). Finitely repeated games with finite automata. Mathematics of Operations Research, 23, 513–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, A., & Okada, D. (1999). Strategic entropy and complexity in repeated games. Games and Economic Behavior, 29, 191–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, A., & Okada, D. (2000a). Repeated games with bounded entropy. Games and Economic Behavior, 30, 228–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neyman, A., & Okada, D. (2000b). Two person repeated games with finite automata. International Journal of Game Theory, 29, 309–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, K.-B. (1998). An investigation of the conditions for effective data fusion in information retrieval. PhD thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

  • Niemi, V., & Renvall, A. (1994). How to prevent buying of votes in computer elections. In Lectures notes in computer science : Vol. 917. Advances in cryptology, ASIACRYPT’94 (pp. 164–170). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisan, N. (1999). Algorithms for selfish agents. In Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 1563. Proceedings of the 16th symposium on theoretical aspects of computer science, STACS99 (pp. 1–17). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisan, N., & Ronen, A. (2000). Computationally feasible VCG mechanisms. In Proceedings ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 242–252). New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisan, N., & Ronen, A. (2001). Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior, 35, 166–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyanchama, M., & Osborn, S. (1995). The role graph model. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on role-based access control (p. 12), Gaithersburg, MD.

  • Okada, N., Hashimoto, T., & Young, P. (1982). Cost allocation in water resources development. Water Resources Research, 18, 361–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, R. P., Sotkiewicz, P. M., Hobbs, B. F., Rothkopf, M. H., & Stewart, W. R. (2005). Efficient market-clearing prices in markets with nonconvexities. European Journal of Operations Research, 164, 269–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osada, R., Funkhouser, R., Chazelle, B., & Dobkin, D. (2002). Matching 3D models with shape distributions. In Shape modeling international (pp. 154-166).

  • Osborn, S., & Guo, Y. (2000). Modeling users in role-based access control. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM workshop on role-based access control (pp. 31–37), Berlin.

  • Osborn, S., Sandhu, R., & Munawer, Q. (2000). Configuring role-based access control to enforce mandatory and discretionary access control policies. ACM Tranactions on Information and System Security TISSEC, 3, 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, C. (1992). On players with a bounded number of states. Games and Economic Behavior, 4, 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadimitriou, C. H. (2001). Algorithms, games, and the Internet. In Proceedings of symposium on theory of computing, STOC.

  • Papadimitriou, C. H., & Yannakakis, M. (1991). On the value of information in distributed decision-making. In PODC 91.

  • Papadimitriou, C., & Yannakakis, M. (1994). On complexity as bounded rationality. In STOC-94 (pp. 726–733).

  • Park, S., & Rothkopf, M. (2005). Auctions with bidder-determined allowable combinations. European Journal of Operational Research, 161, 399–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C., Itoh, K., & Kurosawa, K. (1993). All/nothing election scheme and anonymous channel. In Eurocrypt ’93 (pp. 248–259).

  • Paschetta, E., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2000). A real world mcda application: evaluating software. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 205–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, Z. (1991). Rough sets—theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, M., Shostak, R., & Lamport, L. (1980). Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM, 27, 228–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pekeč, A. (2000). How to design a second-price combinational auction. In INFORMS 2000.

  • Pekeč, A., & Rothkopf, M. H. (2003). Combinatorial auction design. Management Science, 49, 1485–1503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peleg, D. (1996). Local majority voting, small coalitions and controlling monopolies in graphs: a review. In Proceedings of the 3rd colloqiun on structural information and communication complexity (pp. 170–179).

  • Peleg, D. (1998). Size bounds for dynamic monopolies. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 86, 263–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, D. M., Horvitz, E., & Giles, C. L. (2000a). Social choice theory and recommender systems: analysis of the axiomatic foundations of collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 17th national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI-2000 (pp. 729–734). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, D. M., Maynard-Reid, P., Giles, C. L., & Horvitz, E. (2000b). A normative examination of ensemble learning algorithms. In Proceedings 17th international conference on machine learning (ICML-2000) (pp. 735–742). San Mateo: Morgan Kauffmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perny, P. (1998). Multicriteria filtering methods based on concordance/non-discordance principles. Annals of Operations Research, 80, 137–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perny, P., & Spanjaard, O. (2002). Preference-based search in state space graphs. In Proceedings of the AAAI’2002 conference (pp. 751–756), Edmonton, Canada, July 2002.

  • Perny, P., & Spanjaard, O. (2005). A preference-based approach to spanning trees and shortest paths problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 162, 584–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perny, P., & Zucker, J. D. (2001). Preference-based search and machine learning for collaborative filtering: The ‘film-conseil’ recommender system. Information, Interaction, Intelligence, 1, 9–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pikhurko, O. (2000). On envy-free cake division. The American Mathematical Monthly, 107, 736–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirlot, M., & Vincke, P. (1997). Semiorders: properties, representations, applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, I. (1971). Bi-directional search. In B. Meltzer & D. Mitchie (Eds.), Machine intelligence (Vol. 6, pp. 127–140). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poljak, S., & Sura, M. (1983). On periodical behavior in society with symmetric influences. Combinatorica, 3, 119–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, D. (1992). Decision-theoretic defaults. In Proceedings of the ninth biennial conference of the Canadian society for computational studies of intelligence (pp. 190–197). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, H., & Vreeswijk, G. (2002). Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 4, pp. 219–318). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. R. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1, 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmusen, E. (2006). Strategic implications of uncertainty over one’s own private value in auctions. Advances in Theoretical Economics, 6, 1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinwald, L. T., & Soland, R. M. (1966). Conversion of limited-entry decision tables to optimal computer programs I: Minimum average processing time. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 13, 339–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., & Varian, H. R. (1997). Recommender systems. Communications of the ACM, 40, 56–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1976). Discrete mathematical models, with applications to social, biological, and environmental problems. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1979). Measurement theory, with applications to decisionmaking, utility, and the social sciences. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1985). Applications of the theory of meaningfulness to psychology. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (Ed.). (1989). IMA volumes in mathematics and its applications. Applications of combinatorics and graph theory in the biological and social sciences. New York: Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1990). Merging relative scores. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 147, 30–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1991a). Characterizations of the plurality function. Mathematical Social Sciences, 21, 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1991b). On the indicator function of the plurality function. Mathematical Social Sciences, 22, 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1994). Limitations on conclusions using scales of measurement. In A. Barnett, S. M. Pollock, & M. H. Rothkopf (Eds.), Operations research and the public sector (pp. 621–671). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (1995). A functional equation that arises in problems of scheduling with priorities and lateness/earliness penalties. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 21, 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (2003). Challenges for discrete mathematics and theoretical computer science in the defense against bioterrorism. In C. Castillo-Chavez & H. T. Banks (Eds.), SIAM frontiers in applied mathematics series. Mathematical and modeling approaches in homeland security (pp. 1–34). Philadelphia: SIAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, F. S. (2005). Decision support algorithms for port-of-entry inspection. In Working together: research and development partnerships in homeland security, proceedings of DHS/IEEE conference, Boston.

  • Robertson, J. M., & Webb, A. (1997). Near exact and envy-free cake division. Ars Combinatoria, 45, 97–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothkopf, M. H., Pekeč, A., & Harstad, R. M. (1998). Computationally manageable combinatorial auctions. Management Science, 44, 1131–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild, M. (1974). A two-armed bandit theory of market pricing. Journal of Economic Theory, 9, 185–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, T. (2003). The price of anarchy is independent of the network topology. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 67, 341–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, T. (2005). Selfish routing and the price of anarchy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, T., & Tardős, E. (2000). How bad is selfish routing? In Proceedings of IEEE foundations of computer science.

  • Rubin, A. (2002). Security considerations for remote electronic voting. Communications of the ACM, 45, 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1986). Finite automata play the repeated prisoner’s dilemma. Juornal of Economic Theory, 39, 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1989). The electronic mail game: a game with almost common knowledge. American Economic Review, 79, 385–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1998). Modeling bounded rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabbadin, R. (2001). Possibilistic Markov decision processes. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 14, 287–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabbadin, R., Fargier, H., & Lang, J. (1998). Towards qualitative approaches to multi-stage decision making. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 19, 441–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sako, K., & Kilian, J. (1995). Receipt-free mix-type voting scheme. In Eurocrypt ’95 (pp. 393–403).

  • Salloum, S., & Breuer, M. A. (1984). An optimum testing algorithm for some symmetric coherent systems. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 101, 170–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm, T. (2002). Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence, 135, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm, T., & Suri, S. (2001). Side constraints and non-price attributes in markets. In International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), proceedings of the workshop on distributed constraint reasoning, Seattle, WA, 4 August 2001.

  • Sandholm, T., & Suri, S. (2002). Optimal clearing of supply/demand curves. In Proceedings of the 13th annual international symposium on algorithms and computation (ISAAC), Vancouver, Canada.

  • Sandhu, R., & Munawer, Q. (1998). How to do discretionary access control using roles. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM workshop on role-based access control (pp. 47–54), Fairfax, VA.

  • Shachter, R. D. (1986). Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research, 34, 871–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schapire, R. E., Freund, Y., Bartlett, P., & Lee, W. S. (1998). Boosting the margin: a new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods. The Annals of Statistics, 26, 1651–1686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuba, C. L., Krsul, I., Kuhn, M. G., Spafford, E. G., Sundaram, A., & Zamboni, D. (1997). Analysis of a denial of service attack on TCP. In Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 208–233).

  • Scott, D. (1982). Some ordered sets in computer science. In I. Rival (Ed.), Ordered sets (pp. 677–718). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, W. (1995). Network models in economics. In M. O. Ball et al. (Eds.), Handbook in operations research and management science : Vol. 8. Network routing. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Y. (1987). Nonmonotonic logic: meaning and utility. In Proceedings of the 10th international joint conference in artificial intelligence, IJCAI87 (pp. 388–393). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubik, M. (1962). Incentives, decentralized controls, the assignment of joint costs and internal pricing. Management Science, 8, 325–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality (Vol. 2). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A., & Kadane, J. B. (1975). Optimal problem-solving search: all-or-none solutions. Artificial Intelligence, 6, 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S., Kearns, M., & Mansour, Y. (2000). Nash convergence of gradient dynamics in general-sum games. In UAI 2000.

  • Smart, W. D., & Kaelbling, L. P. (2000). Practical reinforcement learning in continuous spaces. In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on machine learning (ICML 2000) (pp. 903–910).

  • Smith, D. E. (1989). Controlling backward inference. Artificial Intelligence, 39, 145–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, D., & Wilson, P. (1995). On players’ models of other players—theory and experimental evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 218–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallard, N., Thall, P. F., & Whitehead, J. (1999). Decision theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Biometrics, 55, 971–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanowski, J., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2001a). Incomplete information tables and rough classification. Computational Intelligence, 17, 454–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanowski, J., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2001b). Valued tolerance and decision rules. In W. Ziarko & Y. Yao (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence : Vol. 2005. Rough sets and current trends in computing (pp. 212–219). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanowski, J., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2002). Induction of decision rules and classification in the valued tolerance approach. In J. J. Alpigini, J. F. Peters, A. Skoeron, & N. Zhong (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence : Vol. 2475. Proceedings of the RSCTC 2002 conference (pp. 271–278). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefanowski, J., & Vanderpooten, D. (2001). Induction of decision rules in classification and discovery-oriented perspectives. International Journal on Intelligent Systems, 16, 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straffin, P. D., & Heaney, J. P. (1981). Game theory and the Tennessee Valley Authority. International Journal of Game Theory, 10, 35–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, P. D., & Saeger, K. J. (2003). Enumeration of increasing boolean expressions and alternative digraph implementations for diagnostic applications. In H. Chu, J. Ferrer, T. Nguyen & Y. Yu (Eds.), Proceedings volume IV, computer, communication and control technologies (Vol. I, pp. 328–333), International Institute of Informatics and Systematics, Orlando, FL.

  • Talluri, K., & van Ryzin, G. J. (1998). An analysis of bid-price controls for network revenue management. Management Science, 44, 1577–1593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talluri, K., & van Ryzin, G. J. (1999). A randomized linear programming method for computing network bid prices. Transportation Science, 33, 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, S. W., & Pearl, J. (1994). Qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI94 (pp. 928–933). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tasnádi, A. (2002). On probabilistic rationing methods. Mathematical Social Sciences, 44, 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, A. (1980). In Arthur Andersen and company lecture series. A behavioral analysis of joint cost allocation and transfer pricing. Champaign: Stipes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuraisingham, B. (1991). The use of conceptual structures for handling the inference problem. In C. E. Landwehr & S. Jajodia (Eds.), Database security V: status and prospects, results of the 5th IFIP WG 11.3 working group conference on database security (pp. 333–362). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thuraisingham, B., Ford, W., Collins, M., & O’Keefe, J. (1993). Design and implementation of a database inference controller. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 11, 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotter, W. T. (1992). Combinatorics and partially ordered sets: dimension theory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukiàs, A. (2003). From decision theory to decision aiding methodology (DIMACS Technical Report 2003-21). DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.

  • Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, P. (2003). A characterization of PQI interval orders. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 127, 387–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzafestas, S. G., & Dalianis, P. J. (1994). Fault diagnosis in complex systems using artificial neural networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE conference on control applications (Vol. 2, pp. 877–882).

  • Vickrey, D., & Koller, D. (2002). Multi-agent algorithms for solving graphical games. In Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI).

  • Vincke, P. (1992a). Exploitation of a crisp relation in a ranking problem. Theory and Decision, 32, 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1992b). Multicriteria decision-aid. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakabayashi, Y. (1986). Aggregation of binary relations: algorithmic and polyhedral investigations. Thesis, Augsburg.

  • Wang, J., & Vande Vate, J. (1990). Question asking strategies for Horn clause systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1, 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegener, I. (1987). The complexity of Boolean functions. New York: Wiley-Teubner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibull, J. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman, M. P., & Doyle, J. (1991). Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the 9th national conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI91 (pp. 698–703). Menlo Park: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weymark, J. A. (1984). Arrow’s theorem with social quasi-orderings. Public Choice, 42, 235–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L. V. (1999). Information efficiency in betting markets: a survey. Bulletin of Economic Research, 51, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yener, A., & Rose, C. (1998). Highly mobile users and paging: optimal polling strategies. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 47, 1251–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilankaya, O., & Celik, G. (2005). Optimal auctions with simultaneous and costly participation. Micro Theory Working Papers celik-05-05-09-03-55-40.

  • Young, H. P. (1985). Cost allocation: methods, principles, applications. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, N. L., Qi, R., & Poole, D. (1994). A computational theory of decision networks. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 11, 83–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Xu, W., & Callan, J. (2003). Exploration and exploitation in adaptive filtering based on Bayesian active learning. In Proceedings of the twentieth international conference on machine learning (ICML-2003).

  • Zhang, H., Schroepfer, C., & Elsayed, E. A. (2006). Sensor thresholds in port-of-entry inspection systems. In Proceedings of the 12th ISSAT international conference on reliability and quality in design (pp. 172–176), Chicago, IL, USA, 3–5 August 2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DIMACS Center, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Fred S. Roberts

Authors
  1. Fred S. Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fred S. Roberts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roberts, F.S. Computer science and decision theory. Ann Oper Res 163, 209–253 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-008-0328-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-008-0328-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation