Abstract
There is often a need to allow for imprecise statements in real-world decision analysis. Joint modeling of intervals and qualitative statements as constraint sets is one important approach to solving this problem, with the advantage that both probabilities and utilities can be handled. However, a major limitation with interval-based approaches is that aggregated quantities such as expected utilities also become intervals, which often hinders efficient discrimination. The discriminative power can be increased by utilizing second-order information in the form of belief distributions, and this paper demonstrates how qualitative relations between variables can be incorporated into such a framework. The general case with arbitrary distributions is described first, and then a computationally efficient simulation algorithm is presented for a relevant sub-class of analyses. By allowing qualitative relations, our approach preserves the ability of interval-based methods to be deliberately imprecise. At the same time, the use of belief distributions allows more efficient discrimination, and it provides a semantically clear interpretation of the resulting beliefs within a probabilistic framework.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Choquet, G. (1954). Theory of capacities. Annales de l’institut Fourier, 5, 131–295.
Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (1998). A framework for analysing decisions under risk. European Journal of Operational Research, 104(3), 474–484.
Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2007). Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3), 808–816.
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., & Larsson, A. (2007). Distribution of expected utility in decision trees. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 46(2), 387–407.
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., & Riabacke, A. (2009). A prescriptive approach to elicitation of decision data. Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice, 3(1), 157–168.
Dempster, A. P. (1967). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38(2), 325–399.
Devroye, L. (1986). Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. New York, USA: Springer.
Ding, X., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2010). Disjoint programming in computational decision analysis. Journal of Uncertain Systems, 4(1), 4–13.
Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory. New York: Plenum Press.
Ekenberg, L. (2000). The logic of conflicts between decision making agents. Journal of Logic and Computation, 10(4), 583–602.
Ekenberg, L., Andersson, M., Danielsson, M., & Larsson, A. (2007). Distributions over Expected Utilities in Decision Analysis. In 5th International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications, Prague, Czech Republic.
Ekenberg, L., Danielson, M., & Thorbiörnson, J. (2006). Multiplicative properties in evaluation of decision trees. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 14(3).
Ekenberg, L., & Thorbiörnson, J. (2001). Second-order decision analysis. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(1), 13–37.
Ekenberg, L., Thorbiörnson, J., & Baidya, T. (2005). Value differences using second-order distributions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 38(1), 81–97.
Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.
Good, I. J. (1962). Subjective probability as the measure of a non-measurable set. In Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, pp. 319–329. Stanford University Press.
Jaffray, J. Y. (1999). Rational Decision Making With Imprecise Probabilities. In 1st International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Ghent, Belgium.
von Neumann, J. (1963). Various techniques used in connection with random digits. In A. H. Taub (Ed.), John von Neumann, Collected Works, Vol. V. New York, USA: MacMillan.
Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shapira, Z. (1995). Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective. Russel Sage Foundation.
Smith, C. A. B. (1961). Consistency in statistical inference and decision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)23(1), 1–25.
Sundgren, D., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2009). Warp effects on calculating interval probabilities. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50(9), 1360–1368.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Alina Kuznetsova for valuable suggestions that helped improve the contents of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Caster, O., Ekenberg, L. (2012). Combining Second-Order Belief Distributions with Qualitative Statements in Decision Analysis. In: Ermoliev, Y., Makowski, M., Marti, K. (eds) Managing Safety of Heterogeneous Systems. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 658. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22884-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22884-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-22883-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-22884-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)