Advertisement

Comparing Stochastic Design Decision Belief Models: Pointwise versus Interval Probabilities

  • Peter C. Matthews

Abstract

Decision support systems can either directly support a product designer or support an agent operating within a multi-agent system (MAS). Stochastic based decision support systems require an underlying belief model that encodes domain knowledge. The underlying supporting belief model has traditionally been a probability distribution function (PDF) which uses pointwise probabilities for all possible outcomes. This can present a challenge during the knowledge elicitation process. To overcome this, it is proposed to test the performance of a credal set belief model. Credal sets (sometimes also referred to as p-boxes) use interval probabilities rather than point-wise probabilities and therefore are easier to elicit from domain experts. The PDF and credal set belief models are compared using a design domain MAS which is able to learn, and thereby refine, the belief model based on its experience. The outcome of the experiment illustrates that there is no significant difference between the PDF based and credal set based belief models in the performance of the MAS.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Hepperle, C., Eckert, C.M., Lindemann, U., Clarkson, P.J.: Exploration of correlations between factors influencing communication in complex product development. Concurrent Engineering-Research and Applications 16(1), 37–59 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U., Clarkson, P.J.: Reflecting communication: A key factor for successful collaboration between embodiment design and simulation. Journal of Engineering Design 20(3), 265–287 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalupnik, M.J., Wynn, D.C., Clarkson, P.J.: Approaches to mitigate the impact of uncertainty in development processes. In: Norell Bergendahl, M., Grimheden, M., Leifer, L., Skogstad, P., Lindemann, U. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Stanford, vol. 1, pp. 459–470 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armoutis, N.D., Maropoulos, P.G., Matthews, P.C., Lomas, C.D.W.: Establishing agile supply networks through competence profiling. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 21(2), 166–173 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tonon, F.: Some properties of a random set approximation to upper and lower distribution functions. International J. of Approximate Reasoning 48(1), 174–184 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aughenbaugh, J.M.: The value of using imprecise probabilities in engineering design. J. of Mechanical Design 128(4), 969–979 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guo, P., Tanaka, H.: Decision making with interval probabilities. European Journal of Operational Research 203(2), 444–454 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferson, S., Hajagos, J.G.: Arithmetic with uncertain numbers: rigorous and (often) best possible answers. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 85(1-3), 135–152 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Levi, I.: The Enterprise of Knowledge: An Essay on Knowledge, Credal Probability, and Chance. MIT Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asuncion, A., Newman, D.J.: UCI machine learning repository. University of California, Irvine, School of Information and Computer Sciences (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tan, G.W., Hayes, C.C., Shaw, M.: An intelligent-agent framework for concurrent product design and planning. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 43(3), 297–306 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter C. Matthews
    • 1
  1. 1.Durham UniversityUK

Personalised recommendations