Skip to main content

A New Approach on ρ to Decision Making Using Belief Functions Under Incomplete Information

  • Conference paper
  • 1759 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 3809))

Abstract

This paper discusses an expected utility approach on ρ to decision making under incomplete information using the belief function framework. In order to make rational decisions under incomplete information, some subjective assumptions often need to be made because of the interval representations of the belief functions. We assume that a decision maker may have some evidence from different sources about the value of ρ, and this evidence can also be represented by a belief function or can result in a unique consonant belief function that is constrained by the evidence over the same frame of discernment. We thus propose a novel approach based on the two-level reasoning Transferable Belief Model and calculate the expected utility value of ρ using pignistic probabilities transformed from the interval-based belief functions. The result can then be used to make a choice between overlapped expected value intervals. Our assumption is between the strongest assumption of a warranted point value of ρ and the weakest assumption of a uniform probability distribution for an unwarranted ρ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory and data fusion in poorly informed environments. Control and Engineering Practice 2(5), 811–823 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Dempster, A.P.: A generalisation of Bayesian inference (with discussion). Journals of the Royal Statistical Society B 30, 205–232 (1968)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Clemen, R.T., Winkler, R.L.: Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 19(2), 187–203 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lesh, S.A.: An evidential theory approach to judgement-based decision making, PhD thesis, Dept. of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Strat, T.M.: Decision Analysis Using Belief Functions. In: Yager, R.R., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: On several representations of an uncertain body of evidence. In: Gupta, M.M., Sanchez, E. (eds.) Fuzzy Information and Decision Process, pp. 167–181. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen, H.T., Walker, E.A.: On Decision Making Using Belief Functions. In: Yager, R.R., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Smets, P., Kennes, R.: The transferable belief model. Artificial Intelligence 66, 191–234 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Schubert, J.: On Pin a Decision-Theoretic Apparatus of Dempster-Shafer Theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 13, 185–200 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Smets, P.: Decision Making in a Context where Uncertainty is Represented by Belief Functions. In: Srivastava, R., Mock, T.J. (eds.) Belief Functions in Business Decisions, pp. 17–61. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: Representing partial ignorance. IEEE System Machine and Cybernetic 26, 361–377 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dubois, D., Prade, H.: The principle of minimum specificity as a basis for evidential reasoning. In: IPMU, pp. 75–84 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: New semantics for quantitative possibility theory. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Ithaca, NY, USA, pp. 152–161 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Smets, P.: Probability, Possibility, Belief: Which and Where. In: Gabbay, D., Smets, P., Smets, P. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision, vol. 1, pp. 1–24. Kluwer, Doordrecht (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: A definition of subjective possibility. Operations Research and Decisions 4, 7–22 (2003)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fan, Y., Deer, P. (2005). A New Approach on ρ to Decision Making Using Belief Functions Under Incomplete Information. In: Zhang, S., Jarvis, R. (eds) AI 2005: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. AI 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3809. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11589990_47

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11589990_47

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-30462-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-31652-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics