Abstract
To make a decision, we must find out the user’s preference, and help the user select an alternative which is the best—according to these preferences. Traditional utility-based decision theory is based on a simplifying assumption that for each two alternatives, a user can always meaningfully decide which of them is preferable. In reality, often, when the alternatives are close, the user is often unable to select one of these alternatives. In this chapter, we show how we can extend the utility-based decision theory to such realistic (interval) cases.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aliev, R., Huseynov, O., Kreinovich, V.: Decision making under interval and fuzzy uncertainty: towards an operational approach. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Application of Fuzzy Systems and Soft Computing ICAFS’2012, Lisbon, Portugal, 29–30 August 2012
Aubinet, M., Vesala, T., Papale, D. (eds.): Eddy Covariance - A Practical Guide to Measurement and Data Analysis. Springer, Dordrecht (2012)
Binder, A.B., Roberts, D. L.: Criteria for Lunar Site Selection, Report No. P-30, NASA Appollo Lunar Exploration Office and Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, January 1970
Cobb, C.W., Douglas, P.H.: A theory of production. Am. Econ. Rev. 18(Supplement), 139–165 (1928)
de Finetti, B.: Theory of Probability, Wiley, New York, Vol. 1, 1974; Vol. 2, 1975
Ehrgott, M., Gandibleux, X. (eds.): Multiple Criteria Optimization: State of the Art Annotated Bibliographic Surveys. Springer, New York (2002)
Ferson, S., Kreinovich, V., Hajagos, J., Oberkampf, W., Ginzburg, L.: Experimental Uncertainty Estimation and Statistics for Data Having Interval Uncertainty, Sandia National Laboratories (2007), Publ. 2007–0939
Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York (1969)
Fishburn, P.C.: Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1988)
Fountoulis, I., Mariokalos, D., Spyridonos, E., Andreakis, E.: Geological criteria and methodology for landfill sites selection. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Greece, 8–10 September 2003, pp. 200–207
Gardeñes, E., et al.: Modal intervals. Reliable Comput. 7, 77–111 (2001)
Giang, P.H.: Decision with dempster-shafer belief functions: decision under ignorance and sequential consistency. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 53, 38–53 (2012)
Guo, P., Tanaka, H.: Decision making with interval probabilities. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 203, 444–454 (2010)
Guo, P., Wang, Y.: Eliciting dual interval probabilities from interval comparison matrices. Inf. Sci. 190, 17–26 (2012)
Helversen B.V., Mata R.: Losing a dime with a satisfied mind: positive affect predicts less search in sequential decision making, Psychology and Aging, 27, 825–839 (2012)
Hurwicz, L.: Optimality Criteria for Decision Making Under Ignorance, Cowles Commission Discussion Paper, Statistics, No. 370, 1951
Jaimes A., Salayandia L., Gallegos I.: New cyber infrastructure for studying land-atmosphere interactions using eddy covariance techniques. In: Abstracts of the 2010 Fall Meeting American Geophysical Union AGU’2010, San Francisco, California, 12–18 December 2010
Jaimes, A., Herrera, J., GonzÍez, L., Ramìrez, G., Laney, C., Browning, D., Peters, D., Litvak, M., Tweedie, C.: Towards a multiscale approach to link climate, NEE and optical properties from a flux tower, robotic tram system that measures hyperspectral reflectance, phenocams, phenostations and a sensor network in desert a shrubland. In: Proceedings of the FLUXNET and Remote Sensing Open Workshop: Towards Upscaling Flux Information from Towers to the Globe FLUXNET-SpecNet’2011, Berkeley, California, 7–9 June 2011
Jaimes, A.: A cyber-Tool to Optimize Site Selection for Establishing an Eddy Covraince and Robotic Tram System at the Jornada Experimental Range. University of Texas, El Paso (2008)
Jaimes, A., Tweedie, C., Kreinovich, V., Ceberio, M.: Scale-invariant approach to multi-criterion optimization under uncertainty, with applications to optimal sensor placement, in particular, to sensor placement in environmental research. Int. J. Reliab. Saf. 6(1–3), 188–203 (2012)
Kiekintveld, C., Kreinovich, V.: Efficient approximation for security games with interval uncertainty, In: Proceedings of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Game Theory for Security, Sustainability, and Health GTSSH’2012, Stanford, 26–28 March 2012
Kintisch, E.: Loss of carbon observatory highlights gaps in data. Science 323, 1276–1277 (2009)
Kreinovich, V.: Decision making under interval uncertainty, In: Abstracts of the 15th GAMM - IMACS International Symposium on Scientific Computing, Computer Arithmetic, and Verified Numerical Computation SCAN’2012. Novosibirsk, Russia, September 2012
Kreinovich, V., Starks, S.A., Iourinski, D., Kosheleva, O., Finkelstein, A.: Open-ended configurations of radio telescopes: a geometrical analysis. Geombinatorics 13(2), 79–85 (2003)
Kyburg, H.E., Smokler, H.E. (eds.): Studies in Subjective Probability. Wiley, New York (1964)
Luce R.D., Krantz D.H., Suppes P., Tversky A.: Foundations of measurement, vol. 3, Representation, Axiomatization, and Invariance, Academic Press, California (1990)
Luce, R.D., Raiffa, R.: Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Dover, New York (1989)
Moore, R.E., Kearfott, R.B., Cloud, M.J.: Introduction to Interval Analysis. SIAM, Pennsylvania (2009)
Myerson, R.B.: Game theory. Analysis of conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1991)
Nash, J.F.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 28, 155–162 (1950)
Nash, J.: Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21, 128–140 (1953)
Nguyen, H.T., Kreinovich, V., Wu, B., Xiang G.: Computing Statistics under Interval and Fuzzy Uncertainty, Springer, Berlin (2012)
Nguyen, H.T., Kreinovich, V.: Applications of Continuous Mathematics to Computer Science. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)
Pfanzangl, J.: Theory of Measurement. Wiley, New York (1968)
Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis. McGraw-Hill, Columbus (1997)
Roth, A.: Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Springer, Berlin (1979)
Savage, L.J.: The Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, New York (1954)
Sawaragi, Y., Nakayama, H., Tanino, T.: Theory of Multiobjective Optimization. Academic Press, Orlando (1985)
Shary, S.P.: A new technique in systems analysis under interval uncertainty and ambiguity. Reliable Comput. 8, 321–418 (2002)
Steuer, R.E.: Multiple Criteria Optimization: Theory, Computations, and Application. Wiley, New York (1986)
Stevens, S.S.: On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 103, 677–680 (1946)
Troffaes, M.C.M.: Decision making under uncertainty using imprecise probabilities. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 45, 7–29 (2007)
Walsh, C.: Monetary Theory and Policy. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants HRD-0734825 and HRD-1242122 (Cyber-ShARE Center of Excellence) and DUE-0926721, by Grant 1 T36 GM078000-01 from the National Institutes of Health, and by a grant on F-transforms from the Office of Naval Research. The authors is greatly thankful to the anonymous referees for valuable suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
A Proof of the Theorem
A Proof of the Theorem
\(1^\circ \). Due to scale-invariance (9), for every \(y_1\), ..., \(y_n\), \(y'_1\), ..., \(y'_n\), we can take \(\lambda _i=\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_i}\) and conclude that
Thus, to describe the equivalence relation \(\sim \), it is sufficient to describe the set of all the vectors \(z=(z_1,\ldots ,z_n)\) for which \(z\sim (1,\ldots ,1)\). Similarly,
So, to describe the ordering relation \(\succ \), it is sufficient to describe the set of all the vectors \(z=(z_1,\ldots ,z_n)\) for which \(z\succ (1,\ldots ,1)\).
Alternatively, we can take \(\lambda _i=\displaystyle \frac{1}{y'_i}\) and conclude that
Thus, it is also sufficient to describe the set of all the vectors \(z=(z_1,\ldots ,z_n)\) for which \((1,\ldots ,1)\succ z\).
\(2^\circ \). The above equivalence involves division. To simplify the description, we can take into account that in the logarithmic space, division becomes a simple difference: \(\ln \left( \displaystyle \frac{y'_i}{y_i}\right) =\ln (y'_i)-\ln (y_i)\). To use this simplification, let us consider the logarithms \(Y_i\mathop {=}\limits ^{\mathrm{{def}}}\ln (y_i)\) of different values. In terms of these logarithms, the original values can be reconstructed as \(y_i=\exp (Y_i)\). In terms of these logarithms, we thus need to consider:
-
the set \(S_\sim \) of all the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) for which
$$\begin{aligned} z=(\exp (Z_1),\ldots ,\exp (Z_n))\sim (1,\ldots ,1), \end{aligned}$$(15)and
-
the set \(S_\succ \) of all the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) for which
$$\begin{aligned} z=(\exp (Z_1),\ldots ,\exp (Z_n))\succ (1,\ldots ,1). \end{aligned}$$(16)
We will also consider the set \(S_\prec \) of all the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) for which
Since the pre-ordering relation is total, for every tuple \(z\),
-
either \(z\sim (1,\ldots ,1)\),
-
or \(z\succ (1,\ldots ,1)\),
-
or \((1,\ldots ,1)\succ z\).
In particular, this is true for \(z=(\exp (Z_1),\ldots ,\exp (Z_n))\). Thus, for every tuple \(Z\), either \(Z\in S_\sim \) or \(Z\in S_\succ \) or \(Z\in S_\prec \).
\(3^\circ \). Let us prove that the set \(S_\sim \) is closed under addition, i.e., that if the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) and \(Z'=(Z'_1,\ldots ,Z'_n)\) belong to the set \(S_\sim \), then their component-wise sum
also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
Indeed, by definition (15) of the set \(S_\sim \), the condition \(Z\in S_\sim \) means that
Using scale-invariance (9) with \(\lambda _i=\exp (Z'_i)\), we conclude that
On the other hand, the condition \(Z'\in S_\sim \) means that
Thus, due to transitivity of the equivalence relation \(\sim \), we conclude that
Since for every \(i\), we have \(\exp (Z_i)\cdot \exp (Z'_i)=\exp (Z_i+Z'_i)\), we thus conclude that
By definition (15) of the set \(S_\sim \), this means that the tuple \(Z+Z'\) belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
\(4^\circ \). Similarly, we can prove that the set \(S_\succ \) is closed under addition, i.e., that if the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) and \(Z'=(Z'_1,\ldots ,Z'_n)\) belong to the set \(S_\succ \), then their component-wise sum
also belongs to the set \(S_\succ \).
Indeed, by definition (16) of the set \(S_\succ \), the condition \(Z\in S_\succ \) means that
Using scale-invariance (8) with \(\lambda _i=\exp (Z'_i)\), we conclude that
On the other hand, the condition \(Z'\in S_\succ \) means that
Thus, due to transitivity of the strict preference relation \(\succ \), we conclude that
Since for every \(i\), we have \(\exp (Z_i)\cdot \exp (Z'_i)=\exp (Z_i+Z'_i)\), we thus conclude that
By definition (16) of the set \(S_\succ \), this means that the tuple \(Z+Z'\) belongs to the set \(S_\succ \).
\(5^\circ \). A similar argument shows that the set \(S_\prec \) is closed under addition, i.e., that if the tuples \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\) and \(Z'=(Z'_1,\ldots ,Z'_n)\) belong to the set \(S_\prec \), then their component-wise sum
also belongs to the set \(S_\prec \).
\(6^\circ \). Let us now prove that the set \(S_\sim \) is closed under the “unary minus” operation, i.e., that if \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\sim \), then \(-Z\mathop {=}\limits ^{\mathrm{{def}}}(-Z_1,\ldots ,-Z_n)\) also belongs to \(S_\sim \).
Indeed, \(Z\in S_\sim \) means that
Using scale-invariance (9) with \(\lambda _i=\exp (-Z_i)=\displaystyle \frac{1}{\exp (Z_i)}\), we conclude that
i.e., that \(-Z\in S_\sim \).
\(7^\circ \). Let us prove that if \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\succ \), then \(-Z\mathop {=}\limits ^{\mathrm{{def}}}(-Z_1,\ldots ,-Z_n)\) belongs to \(S_\prec \).
Indeed, \(Z\in S_\succ \) means that
Using scale-invariance (8) with \(\lambda _i=\exp (-Z_i)=\displaystyle \frac{1}{\exp (Z_i)}\), we conclude that
i.e., that \(-Z\in S_\prec \).
Similarly, we can show that if \(Z\in S_\prec \), then \(-Z\in S_\succ \).
\(8^\circ \). From Part 3 of this proof, it now follows that if \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\sim \), then \(Z+Z\in S_\sim \), then that \(Z+(Z+Z)\in S_\sim \), etc., i.e., that for every positive integer \(p\), the tuple
also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
By using Part 6 of this proof, we can also conclude that this is true for negative integers \(p\) as well. Finally, by taking into account that the zero tuple \(0\mathop {=}\limits ^{\mathrm{{def}}}(0,\ldots ,0)\) can be represented as \(Z+(-Z)\), we conclude that \(0\cdot Z=0\) also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
Thus, if a tuple \(Z\) belongs to the set \(S_\sim \), then for every integer \(p\), the tuple \(p\cdot Z\) also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
\(9^\circ \). Similarly, from Parts 4 and 5 of this proof, it follows that
-
if \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\succ \), then for every positive integer \(p\), the tuple \(p\cdot Z\) also belongs to the set \(S_\succ \), and
-
if \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\prec \), then for every positive integer \(p\), the tuple \(p\cdot Z\) also belongs to the set \(S_\prec \).
\(10^\circ \). Let us prove that for every rational number \(r=\displaystyle \frac{p}{q}\), where \(p\) is an integer and \(q\) is a positive integer, if a tuple \(Z\) belongs to the set \(S_\sim \), then the tuple \(r\cdot Z\) also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
Indeed, according to Part 8, \(Z\in S_\sim \) implies that \(p\cdot Z\in S_\sim \).
According to Part 2, for the tuple \(r\cdot Z\), we have either \(r\cdot Z\in S_\sim \), or \(r\cdot Z\in S_\succ \), or \(r\cdot Z\in S_\prec \).
-
If \(r\cdot Z\in S_\succ \), then, by Part 9, we would get \(p\cdot Z=q\cdot (r\cdot Z)\in S_\succ \), which contradicts our result that \(p\cdot Z\in S_\sim \).
-
Similarly, if \(r\cdot Z\in S_\prec \), then, by Part 9, we would get \(p\cdot Z=q\cdot (r\cdot Z)\in S_\prec \), which contradicts our result that \(p\cdot Z\in S_\sim \).
Thus, the only remaining option is \(r\cdot Z\in S_\sim \). The statement is proven.
\(11^\circ \). Let us now use continuity to prove that for every real number \(x\), if a tuple \(Z\) belongs to the set \(S_\sim \), then the tuple \(x\cdot Z\) also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \).
Indeed, a real number \(x\) can be represented as a limit of rational numbers: \(r^{(k)}\rightarrow x\). According to Part 10, for every \(k\), we have \(r^{(k)}\cdot Z\in S_\sim \), i.e., the tuple
In particular, this means that \(Z^{(k)}\succeq (1,\ldots ,1)\). In the limit,
By definition of the sets \(S_\sim \) and \(S_\succ \), this means that \(x\cdot Z\in S_\sim \) or \(x\cdot Z\in S_\succ \).
Similarly, for \(-(x\cdot Z)=(-x)\cdot Z\), we conclude that \(-x\cdot Z\in S_\sim \) or
If we had \(x\cdot Z\in S_\succ \), then by Part 7 we would get \((-x)\cdot Z\in S_\prec \), a contradiction. Thus, the case \(x\cdot Z\in S_\succ \) is impossible, and we have \(x\cdot Z\in S_\sim \). The statement is proven.
\(12^\circ \). According to Parts 3 and 11, the set \(S_\sim \) is closed under addition and under multiplication by an arbitrary real number. Thus, if tuples \(Z,\ldots ,Z'\) belong to the set \(S_\sim \), their arbitrary linear combination \(x\cdot Z+\ldots +x'\cdot Z'\) also belongs to the set \(S_\sim \). So, the set \(S_\sim \) is a linear subspace of the \(n\)-dimensional space of all the tuples.
\(13^\circ \). The subspace \(S_\sim \) cannot coincide with the entire \(n\)-dimensional space, because then the pre-ordering relation would be trivial. Thus, the dimension of this subspace must be less than or equal to \(n-1\). Let us show that the dimension of this subspace is \(n-1\).
Indeed, let us assume that the dimension is smaller than \(n-1\). Since the pre-ordering is non-trivial, there exist tuples \(y=(y_1,\ldots ,y_n)\) and \(y'=(y'_1,\ldots ,y'_n)\) for which \(y\succ y'\) and thus, \(Z=(Z_1,\ldots ,Z_n)\in S_\succ \), where \(Z_i=\ln \left( \displaystyle \frac{y_i}{y'_i}\right) \). From \(Z\in S_\succ \), we conclude that \(-Z\in S_\prec \).
Since the linear space \(S_\sim \) is a less than \((n-1)\)-dimensional subspace of an \(n\)-dimensional linear space, there is a path connecting \(Z\in S_\succ \) and \(-Z\in S_\prec \) which avoids \(S_\sim \). In mathematical terms, this path is a continuous mapping \(\gamma :[0,1]\rightarrow R^n\) for which \(\gamma (0)=Z\) and \(\gamma (1)=-Z\). Since this path avoids \(S_\sim \), every point \(\gamma (t)\) on this path belongs either to \(S_\succ \) or to \(S_\prec \).
Let \(\overline{t}\) denote the supremum (least upper bound) of the set of all the values \(t\) for which \(\gamma (t)\in S_\succ \). By definition of the supremum, there exists a sequence \(t^{(k)}\rightarrow \overline{t}\) for which \(\gamma \left( t^{(k)}\right) \in S_\succ \). Similarly to Part 11, we can use continuity to prove that in the limit, \(\gamma \left( \overline{t}\right) \in S_\succ \) or \(\gamma \left( \overline{t}\right) \in S_\sim \). Since the path avoids the set \(S_\sim \), we thus get \(\gamma \left( \overline{t}\right) \in S_\succ \).
Similarly, since \(\gamma (1)\not \in S_\succ \), there exists a sequence \(t^{(k)}\downarrow \overline{t}\) for which \(\gamma \left( t^{(k)}\right) \in S_\prec \). We can therefore conclude that in the limit, \(\gamma \left( \overline{t}\right) \in S_\succ \) or \(\gamma (\overline{t})\in S_\sim \)—a contradiction with our previous conclusion that \(\gamma \left( \overline{t}\right) \in S_\succ \).
This contradiction shows that the linear space \(S_\sim \) cannot have dimension smaller than \(n-1\) and thus, that this space have dimension \(n-1\).
\(14^\circ \). Every \((n-1)\)-dimensional linear subspace of an \(n\)-dimensional superspace separates the superspace into two half-spaces. Let us show that one of these half-spaces is \(S_\succ \) and the other is \(S_\prec \).
Indeed, if one of the subspaces contains two tuples \(Z\) and \(Z'\) for which \(Z\in S_\succ \) and \(Z'\in S_\prec \), then the line segment \(\gamma (t)=t\cdot Z+(1-t)\cdot Z'\) containing these two points also belongs to the same subspace, i.e., avoids the set \(S_\sim \). Thus, similarly to Part 13, we would get a contradiction.
So, if one point from a half-space belongs to \(S_\succ \), all other points from this subspace also belong to the set \(S_\succ \). Similarly, if one point from a half-space belongs to \(S_\prec \), all other points from this subspace also belong to the set \(S_\prec \).
\(15^\circ \). Every \((n-1)\)-dimensional linear subspace of an \(n\)-dimensional space has the form
for some real values \(\alpha _i\), and the corresponding half-spaces have the form
and
The set \(S_\succ \) coincides with one of these subspaces. If it coincides with the set of all tuples \(Z\) for which \(\alpha _1\cdot Z_1+\ldots +\alpha _n\cdot Z_n<0\), then we can rewrite it as
i.e., as \(\alpha '_1\cdot Z_1+\ldots +\alpha '_n\cdot Z_n>0\) for \(\alpha '_i=-\alpha _i\).
Thus, without losing generality, we can conclude that the set \(S_\succ \) coincides with the set of all the tuples \(Z\) for which \(\alpha _1\cdot Z_1+\ldots +\alpha _n\cdot Z_n>0\). We have mentioned that
where \(Z_i=\ln \left( \displaystyle \frac{y'_i}{y_i}\right) \). So,
Since \(\ln \left( \displaystyle \frac{y'_i}{y_i}\right) =\ln (y'_i)-\ln (y_i)\), the last inequality in the formula (44) is equivalent to
Let us take \(\exp \) of both sides of the formula (45); then, due to the monotonicity of the exponential function, we get an equivalent inequality
Here,
where for every \(i\), \(e^{\alpha _i\cdot z_i}=\left( e^{z_i}\right) ^{\alpha _i}\), with \(z_i\mathop {=}\limits ^{\mathrm{{def}}}\ln (y'_i)\), implies that
so
and similarly,
Thus, due to (44), (45), (46), (48) and (49), the condition \(y'\succ y\) is equivalent to:
Similarly, we prove that
The condition \(\alpha _i>0\) follows from our assumption that the pre-ordering is monotonic.
The theorem is proven.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kreinovich, V. (2014). Decision Making Under Interval Uncertainty (and Beyond). In: Guo, P., Pedrycz, W. (eds) Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 502. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39307-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39307-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39306-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39307-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)