Fuzzy Bayesian Nets and Influence Diagrams with Cognitive Numerical Judgment of Imprecise Probabilities
- 282 Downloads
The chapter will explain a connection between subjective uncertainty during the probability assessment and mental number representation of different probabilities expressed by approximate numbers. Subjective probabilities are represented as information granules described by linguistic terms and modeled as triangular fuzzy numbers. The proposed optimization functions proved to be efficient in determination of feasible probability bounds, yet corresponding to the human cognitive process. The usage of optimized fuzzy probabilities is illustrated on simple Influence diagram solving the e-commerce transaction. The quadratic programming model is proposed that can be easily solved, and simulation results are concurrent with the experimental findings of subjective probability assessment.
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia under Grant III 42006 and Grant III 44006.
- 3.Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in working relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- 7.Head, M., & Yuan, Y. (2001). Privacy protection in electronic commerce–A theoretical framework. Human Systems Management, 20(2), 149–160.Google Scholar
- 8.Keen, P., Ballance, G., Chan, S., & Schrump, S. (1999). Electronic commerce relationships: Trust by design. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall PTR.Google Scholar
- 9.Yan, Z., & Holtmanns, S. (2008). Trust modeling and management: From social trust to digital trust (pp. 290–323). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- 12.Gambetta, D. (2000). Can we trust trust. In Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (Chap. 13, pp. 213–237). Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
- 14.Thatcher, J. B., Carter, M., Li, X., & Rong, G. (2013). A classification and investigation of trustees in B-to-C e-commerce: General vs. specific trust. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 32, 4.Google Scholar
- 16.Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Ren, J., Wang, J., Jenkinson, I., Xu, D. L., & Yang, J. B. (2007). A Bayesian network approach for offshore risk analysis through linguistic variables. China Ocean Engineering, 21(3), 371.Google Scholar
- 29.Halliwell, J., & Shen, Q. (2002). Towards a linguistic probability theory. In Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, 2002. FUZZ-IEEE’02 (Vol. 1, pp. 596–601). Honolulu: IEEE.Google Scholar
- 30.Janji, A., Stankovi, M., & Velimirovi, L. (2015). Multi-criteria influence diagrams – A tool for the sequential group risk assessment. In Granular computing and decision-making (pp. 165–193). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
- 31.Weichselberger, K., & Pöhlmann, S. (1990). A methodology for uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- 32.Halliwell, J., Keppens, J., & Shen, Q. (2003). Linguistic Bayesian networks for reasoning with subjective probabilities in forensic statistics. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 42–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar