Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretable systems based on evidential prospect theory for decision-making

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dempster Shafer Theory is known for its capability of modelling information uncertainty by considering the powerset of decision alternatives. Studies in literature propose numerous solutions to resolve the open issues in DST like basic probabilities computation, and conflicting evidence combination. However, there is no widely accepted method so far which can resolve both the issues simultaneously. This work presents a Decision Support System based on descriptive decision-making model which attempts to resolve both the issues, and provides interpretable knowledge about the decision space. The proposed DSS considers triangular fuzzy number to compute basic probabilities, and multi-criteria decision-making methods, instead of DS combination rule, to assign fusion probabilities. The decision alternatives are ranked based on fusion probabilities by an optimal MCDM method, and gain-loss values from prospect theory. Experimental analysis is performed on ten benchmark datasets from various domains. A comprehensive comparison of results with traditional approaches and with recent research works are presented. It can be inferred that VIKOR method has assigned high fusion probabilities, but its prediction accuracy is less compared to TOPSIS; moreover variations in the gain-loss values corresponding to fusion probabilities is observed due to various decision-maker’s attitudes towards risk. An optimal MCDM method, TOPSIS, is chosen based on its performance and prospect values. The approaches and outcomes of this work can be used to develop explainable decision support systems for various applications.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Paggi H, Soriano J, Lara JA, Damiani E (2021) Towards the definition of an information quality metric for information fusion models. Comput Electric Eng 89:106907

    Google Scholar 

  2. Christopher JJ, Nehemiah KH, Arputharaj K (2016) Knowledge-based systems and interestingness measures: analysis with clinical datasets. J Comput Inf Technol 24(1):65–78

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kavya R, Christopher J, Panda S, Lazarus YB (2021) Machine learning and xai approaches for allergy diagnosis. Biomed Signal Process Control 69:102681

    Google Scholar 

  4. Timmerman Y, Bronselaer A (2019) Measuring data quality in information systems research. Decis Support Syst 126:113138

    Google Scholar 

  5. Christopher J (2019) The science of rule-based classifiers. In: 2019 9th International conference on cloud computing, data science & engineering (Confluence). IEEE, pp 299–303

  6. Ain N, Vaia G, DeLone WH, Waheed M (2019) Two decades of research on business intelligence system adoption, utilization and success–a systematic literature review. Decis Support Syst 125:113113

    Google Scholar 

  7. Xia D, Li C, Xin J, Zhu Y (2021) A method for emergency response alternative decision-making under uncertainty, Journal of Control and Decision, pp 1–14

  8. Shanmugapriya M, Nehemiah HK, Bhuvaneswaran R, Arputharaj K, Christopher JJ (2016) Sime: a geometric approach for similarity estimation of fuzzy sets. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 13(5):345–353

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jaynes ET, Kempthorne O (1976) Confidence intervals vs bayesian intervals. In: Foundations of probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theories of science. Springer, pp 175–257

  10. Dubois D, Fargier H, Prade H (1996) Possibility theory in constraint satisfaction problems: handling priority, preference and uncertainty. Appl Intell 6(4):287–309

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Ghahtarani A (2021) A new portfolio selection problem in bubble condition under uncertainty: application of z-number theory and fuzzy neural network. Expert Syst Appl 177:114944

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang G, Li Z, Wu WZ, Liu X, Xie N (2018) Information structures and uncertainty measures in a fully fuzzy information system. Int J Approx Reason 101:119–149

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Dempster AP (2008) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. In: Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. Springer, pp 57–72

  14. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence, vol 42. Princeton University Press, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Noyes J, Booth A, Cargo M, Flemming K, Harden A, Harris J, Garside R, Hannes K, Pantoja T, Thomas J (2019) Qualitative evidence, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, pp 525–545

  16. Kong G, Xu DL, Yang JB, Wang T, Jiang B (2020) Evidential reasoning rule-based decision support system for predicting icu admission and in-hospital death of trauma, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems

  17. Fei L, Xia J, Feng Y, Liu L (2019) A novel method to determine basic probability assignment in dempster–shafer theory and its application in multi-sensor information fusion. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 15(7):1550147719865876

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sivakumar R, Christopher J (2020) Fuzzy resembler: An approach for evaluation of fuzzy sets. In: Innovations in computer science and engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp 311–322

  19. Jousselme AL, Maupin P (2012) Distances in evidence theory: comprehensive survey and generalizations. Int J Approx Reason 53(2):118–145

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ma T, Xiao F (2019) An improved method to transform triangular fuzzy number into basic belief assignment in evidence theory. IEEE Access 7:25308–25322

    Google Scholar 

  21. Deng X, Liu Q, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2016) An improved method to construct basic probability assignment based on the confusion matrix for classification problem. Inf Sci 340:250–261

    Google Scholar 

  22. Radhika C, Parvathi R (2016) Intuitionistic fuzzification functions. Glob J Pure Appl Math 12(2):1211–1227

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zadeh LA (1965) Information and control. Fuzzy Sets 8(3):338–353

    Google Scholar 

  24. Yu C, Yang J, Yang D, Ma X, Min H (2015) An improved conflicting evidence combination approach based on a new supporting probability distance. Expert Syst Appl 42(12):5139–5149

    Google Scholar 

  25. Chen L, Diao L, Sang J (2019) A novel weighted evidence combination rule based on improved entropy function with a diagnosis application. IntJ Distrib Sens Netw 15(1):1550147718823990

    Google Scholar 

  26. Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Fang R, Liao H (2021) A prospect theory-based evidential reasoning approach for multi-expert multi-criteria decision-making with uncertainty considering the psychological cognition of experts. Int J Fuzzy Syst 23(2):584–598

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wang T, Li H, Zhou X, Huang B, Zhu H (2020) A prospect theory-based three-way decision model. Knowl Based Syst 203:106129

    Google Scholar 

  29. Soundappan P, Nikolaidis E, Haftka RT, Grandhi R, Canfield R (2004) Comparison of evidence theory and bayesian theory for uncertainty modeling. Reliab Eng Syst 85(1-3):295– 311

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jousselme AL, Grenier D, Bossé É (2001) A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inform Fusion 2(2):91–101

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abdellaoui M, Bleichrodt H, Paraschiv C (2007) Loss aversion under prospect theory: a parameter-free measurement. Manag Sci 53(10):1659–1674

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bleichrodt H, Schmidt U, Zank H (2009) Additive utility in prospect theory. Manag Sci 55(5):863–873

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Booij AS, Van de Kuilen G (2009) A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory. J Econ Psychol 30(4):651–666

  34. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1992) Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain 5(4):297–323

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Wakker PP (2010) Prospect theory: For risk and ambiguity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang L, Zhang ZX, Wang YM (2015) A prospect theory-based interval dynamic reference point method for emergency decision making. Expert Syst Appl 42(23):9379–9388

    Google Scholar 

  37. Baláž V, Bačová V, Drobná E, Dudeková K, Adamík K (2013) Testing prospect theory parameters. Ekonomicky časopis 61:655–671

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tang Y, Wu D, Liu Z (2021) A new approach for generation of generalized basic probability assignment in the evidence theory, Pattern Analysis and Applications, pp 1–17

  39. Zhu C, Qin B, Xiao F, Cao Z, Pandey HM (2021) A fuzzy preference-based dempster-shafer evidence theory for decision fusion. Inf Sci 570:306–322

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Zheng H, Tang Y (2020) A novel failure mode and effects analysis model using triangular distribution-based basic probability assignment in the evidence theory. IEEE Access 8:66813–66827

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tirkolaee EB, Goli A, Weber GW (2020) Fuzzy mathematical programming and self-adaptive artificial fish swarm algorithm for just-in-time energy-aware flow shop scheduling problem with outsourcing option. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 28(11):2772– 2783

    Google Scholar 

  42. Li J, Xie B, Jin Y, Hu Z, Zhou L (2020) Weighted conflict evidence combination method based on hellinger distance and the belief entropy. IEEE Access 8:225507–225521

    Google Scholar 

  43. Chen L, Diao L, Sang J (2018) Weighted evidence combination rule based on evidence distance and uncertainty measure: an application in fault diagnosis, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, vol 2018

  44. Şahin M (2021) A comprehensive analysis of weighting and multicriteria methods in the context of sustainable energy. Int J Environ Sci Technol 18(6):1591–1616

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sentz K, Ferson S et al (2002) Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory. Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, vol 4015

  46. Tirkolaee EB, Mardani A, Dashtian Z, Soltani M, Weber GW (2020) A novel hybrid method using fuzzy decision making and multi-objective programming for sustainable-reliable supplier selection in two-echelon supply chain design. J Clean Prod 250:119517

    Google Scholar 

  47. Haseli G, Sheikh R, Wang J, Tomaskova H, Tirkolaee EB (2021) A novel approach for group decision making based on the best–worst method (g-bwm): application to supply chain management. Mathematics 9(16):1881

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tirkolaee EB, Dashtian Z, Weber GW, Tomaskova H, Soltani M, Mousavi NS (2021) An integrated decision-making approach for green supplier selection in an agri-food supply chain: threshold of robustness worthiness. Mathematics 9(11):1304

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhao J, Xue R, Dong Z, Tang D, Wei W (2020) Evaluating the reliability of sources of evidence with a two-perspective approach in classification problems based on evidence theory. Information Sciences 507:313–338

    Google Scholar 

  50. de Palma A, Abdellaoui M, Attanasi G, Ben-Akiva M, Erev I, Fehr-Duda H, Fok D, Fox CR, Hertwig R, Picard N et al (2014) Beware of black swans: taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty. Mark Lett 25(3):269–280

    Google Scholar 

  51. Dua D, Graff C (2017) UCI machine learning repository, [Online]. Accessed on 14 Nov 2020. Available: http://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml

  52. Leema N, Khanna Nehemiah H, Kannan A, Jabez Christopher J (2016) Computer aided diagnosis system for clinical decision making: experimentation using pima indian diabetes dataset. Asian J Inf Technol 15(17):3217–3231

    Google Scholar 

  53. Veenman CJ, Reinders MJ (2005) The nearest subclass classifier: a compromise between the nearest mean and nearest neighbor classifier. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(9):1417– 1429

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cover T, Hart P (1967) Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Trans Inform Theor 13 (1):21–27

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Chang CC, Lin CJ (2011) Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 2(3):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  56. Freund Y, Mason L (1999) The alternating decision tree learning algorithm. In: icml, vol 99. Citeseer, pp 124–133

  57. Hu BG (2013) What are the differences between bayesian classifiers and mutual-information classifiers? IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 25(2):249–264

    Google Scholar 

  58. Castro CL, Braga AP (2013) Novel cost-sensitive approach to improve the multilayer perceptron performance on imbalanced data. EEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst 24(6):888– 899

    Google Scholar 

  59. Denoeux T (2008) A k-nearest neighbor classification rule based on dempster-shafer theory. In: Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. Springer, pp 737–760

  60. Xu P, Deng Y, Su X, Mahadevan S (2013) A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data. Knowl-Based Syst 46:69–80

    Google Scholar 

  61. Xu P, Davoine F, Zha H, Denoeux T (2016) Evidential calibration of binary svm classifiers. Int J Approx Reason 72:55–70

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Liu YT, Pal NR, Marathe AR, Lin CT (2017) Weighted fuzzy dempster–shafer framework for multimodal information integration. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(1):338–352

    Google Scholar 

  63. He Q, Li X, Kim DN, Jia X, Gu X, Zhen X, Zhou L (2020) Feasibility study of a multi-criteria decision-making based hierarchical model for multi-modality feature and multi-classifier fusion: Applications in medical prognosis prediction. Information Fusion 55:207–219

    Google Scholar 

  64. Isen AM (2001) An influence of positive affect on decision making in complex situations: theoretical issues with practical implications. J Consum Psychol 11(2):75–85

    Google Scholar 

  65. Magrabi F, Ammenwerth E, McNair JB, De Keizer NF, Hyppönen H, Nykänen P, Rigby M, Scott PJ, Vehko T, Wong ZSY et al (2019) Artificial intelligence in clinical decision support: challenges for evaluating ai and practical implications. Yearb Med Inform 28(01):128–134

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and Information Systems Department, BITS Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Hyderabad, Telangana State, India

    Ramisetty Kavya & Jabez Christopher

Authors
  1. Ramisetty Kavya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jabez Christopher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jabez Christopher.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kavya, R., Christopher, J. Interpretable systems based on evidential prospect theory for decision-making. Appl Intell 53, 1640–1665 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03276-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03276-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation