Combining Second-Order Belief Distributions with Qualitative Statements in Decision Analysis

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 658)

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Choquet, G. (1954). Theory of capacities. Annales de l’institut Fourier, 5, 131–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (1998). A framework for analysing decisions under risk. European Journal of Operational Research, 104(3), 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2007). Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3), 808–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., & Larsson, A. (2007). Distribution of expected utility in decision trees. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 46(2), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Dempster, A. P. (1967). Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 38(2), 325–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Devroye, L. (1986). Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. New York, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Ding, X., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2010). Disjoint programming in computational decision analysis. Journal of Uncertain Systems, 4(1), 4–13.Google Scholar
  9. Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  10. Ekenberg, L. (2000). The logic of conflicts between decision making agents. Journal of Logic and Computation, 10(4), 583–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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).Google Scholar
  13. Ekenberg, L., & Thorbiörnson, J. (2001). Second-order decision analysis. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(1), 13–37.Google Scholar
  14. Ekenberg, L., Thorbiörnson, J., & Baidya, T. (2005). Value differences using second-order distributions. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 38(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Jaffray, J. Y. (1999). Rational Decision Making With Imprecise Probabilities. In 1st International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Ghent, Belgium.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Shapira, Z. (1995). Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective. Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, C. A. B. (1961). Consistency in statistical inference and decision. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)23(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  22. Sundgren, D., Danielson, M., & Ekenberg, L. (2009). Warp effects on calculating interval probabilities. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 50(9), 1360–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug MonitoringUppsala Monitoring CentreUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Systems SciencesStockholm UniversityKistaSweden

Personalised recommendations