Axiomatic Foundations of Generalized Qualitative Utility

  • Paul Weng
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8271)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to provide a unifying axiomatic justification for a class of qualitative decision models comprising among others optimistic/pessimistic qualitative utilities, binary possibilistic utility, likelihood-based utility, Spohn’s disbelief function-based utility. All those criteria that are instances of Algebraic Expected Utility have been shown to be counterparts of Expected Utility thanks to a unifying axiomatization in a von Neumann-Morgenstern setting when non probabilistic decomposable uncertainty measures are used. Those criteria are based on ( ⊕ , ⊗ ) operators, counterpart of ( + , ×) used by Expected Utility, where ⊕ is an idempotent operator and ⊗ is a triangular norm. The axiomatization is lead in the Savage setting which is a more general setting than that of von Neumann-Morgenstern as here we do not assume that the uncertainty representation of the decision-maker is known.

Keywords

Decision Model Expect Utility Optimistic Utility Possibility Distribution Uncertainty Representation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fishburn, P.: Utility theory for decision making. Wiley (1970)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allais, M.: Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats de l’école américaine. Econometrica 21(53), 503–546Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 75, 643–669 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: An introduction to possibilistic and fuzzy logics. In: Readings in Uncertain Reasoning, pp. 742–761. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raufaste, E., da Silva Neves, R., Mariné, C.: Testing the descriptive validity of possibility theory in human judgements of uncertainty. Artificial Intelligence 148, 197–218 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, D., Godo, L., Prade, H., Zapico, A.: Advances in qualitative decision theory: Refined rankings. In: Monard, M.C., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) IBERAMIA-SBIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1952, pp. 427–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, D., Godo, L., Prade, H., Zapico, A.: Making decision in a qualitative setting: from decision under uncertainty to case-based decision. In: KR, vol. 6, pp. 594–607 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giang, P., Shenoy, P.: A comparison of axiomatic approaches to qualitative decision making using possibility theory. In: UAI, vol. 17, pp. 162–170 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giang, P., Shenoy, P.: Decision making on the sole basis of statistical likelihood. Artificial Intelligence 165, 137–163 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giang, P., Shenoy, P.: A qualitative linear utility theory for spohn’s theory of epistemic beliefs. In: UAI, vol. 16, pp. 220–229 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Sabbadin, R.: Qualitative decision theory with Sugeno integrals. In: UAI, vol. 14, pp. 121–128 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weng, P.: An axiomatic approach to qualitative decision theory with binary possibilistic utility. In: ECAI, vol. 17, pp. 467–471 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brafman, R., Tennenholtz, M.: On the axiomatization of qualitative decision criteria. In: AAAI, vol. 14, pp. 76–81 (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Kaci, S., Prade, H.: Bipolar possibilistic representations. In: UAI, vol. 18, pp. 45–52 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilboa, I.: Expected utility with purely subjective non-additive probabilities. Journal of Mathematical Economics 16, 65–88 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmeidler, D.: Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica 57, 571–587 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and applications. Academy Press (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Sabbadin, R.: Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 459–478 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weng, P.: Axiomatic foundations for a class of generalized expected utility: Algebraic expected utility. In: UAI, vol. 22, pp. 520–527 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klement, E., Mesiar, R., Pap, E.: Triangular norms. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Weng
    • 1
  1. 1.LIP6, UPMCFrance

Personalised recommendations