Fuzzy Bayesian Nets and Influence Diagrams with Cognitive Numerical Judgment of Imprecise Probabilities

  • Aleksandar Janjić
  • Jelena D. Velimirović
  • Lazar Z. VelimirovićEmail author
Part of the Fuzzy Management Methods book series (FMM)


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.


  1. 1.
    Guo, J., & Sun, C. (2004). Global electronic markets and global traditional markets. Electronic Markets, 14(1), 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, M. K., Cheung, W., & Tang, M. (2013). Building trust online: Interactions among trust building mechanisms. Information & Management, 50(7), 439–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Grabner-Kräuter, S., & Kaluscha, E. A. (2003). Empirical research in on-line trust: A review and critical assessment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), 783–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Head, M., & Yuan, Y. (2001). Privacy protection in electronic commerce–A theoretical framework. Human Systems Management, 20(2), 149–160.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 9.
    Yan, Z., & Holtmanns, S. (2008). Trust modeling and management: From social trust to digital trust (pp. 290–323). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones, K., & Leonard, L. N. (2008). Trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce. Information & Management, 45(2), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang, W. L., Diaz, A. N., & Hung, P. C. (2015). Estimating trust value: A social network perspective. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(6), 1381–1400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Beldad, A., De Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Yau, S. S. (2006). Managing trust in distributed agent systems. In International Conference on Autonomic and Trusted Computing (pp. 17–25). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sundararajan, A. (2016). The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2005). Viral marketing: The use of surprise. In Advances in electronic marketing (pp. 122–138). Hershey: Group Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016). Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb. Tourism Management, 55, 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beer, M., Ferson, S., & Kreinovich, V. (2013). Imprecise probabilities in engineering analyses. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 37(1–2), 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu, J., López, L. M., Yang, J. B., & Wang, J. (2008). Linguistic assessment approach for hierarchical safety analysis and synthesis. In Intelligent decision and policy making support systems (pp. 211–230). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 22.
    Guo, P., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Decision making with interval probabilities. European Journal of Operational Research, 203(2), 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yager, R. R., & Kreinovich, V. (1999). Decision making under interval probabilities. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 22(3), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215(5109), 1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: A logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siegler, R. S., Fazio, L. K., Bailey, D. H., & Zhou, X. (2013). Fractions: The new frontier for theories of numerical development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wallsten, T. S., Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., Zwick, R., & Forsyth, B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(4), 348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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. 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. 31.
    Weichselberger, K., & Pöhlmann, S. (1990). A methodology for uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksandar Janjić
    • 1
  • Jelena D. Velimirović
    • 2
  • Lazar Z. Velimirović
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Faculty of Electronic EngineeringUniversity of NišNišSerbia
  2. 2.Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and ArtsBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations