A new approach to specificity in possibility theory: Decision-making point of view
Introduction
Since the mid-twentieth century, the necessity of handling the kind of uncertainty being not probabilistic in nature has resulted in developing many mathematical theories of uncertainty different from the probability one. Among them are: Choquet theory of capacities [3], Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence [7], [35], Zadeh fuzzy sets and the possibility theory based on them [11], [13], [43], Sugeno theory of fuzzy integral [40], and De Cooman possibility theory [4], [5], [6].
One of the non-probabilistic approaches to handling uncertainty was suggested by prof. Yu.P. Pyt'ev in the late 1990s [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [32]. It was originally developed to model probabilistic uncertainty called randomness using imprecise information about its probabilistic model which can be retrieved not only from statistical data or strong theoretical considerations (like in classical or geometric probability) but also from someone's intuitive knowledge about an experiment in question. Nevertheless, Pyt'ev possibility theory can be used to model non-probabilistic uncertainty as well [33], [34]. It has a probability–possibility consistency principle [31] which is stronger than the similar principle formulated by Zadeh. Since its development, the theory has been applied in experimental data analysis [20], [38], game theory [24], image analysis [44], [45], etc.
The domain of possibility measure in Pyt'ev possibility theory is an algebra of events of some random experiment, and its range is the lattice called the scale of possibility values. Lattice is a unit interval with natural order relation of real numbers “⩽” and two algebraic operations “✢” and “✻”. Any specific forms of operations “✢” and “✻” are not postulated, rather, they are deduced from the intention to make possibility theory be a framework for obtaining invariant results and appear to be “max” and “min” respectively. This intention is formulated in the form of the principle of relativity: in Pyt'ev possibility theory any statement is meaningful iff it is invariant to any strictly increasing lower semi-continuous transformation of all possibility values with fixed points 0 and 1. This fact allows anyone to assign numerical values to possibilities using his individual subjective scale of possibility values which can be mapped to the scale of possibility values used by any other person by a strictly increasing lower semi-continuous transformation.
All the theories mentioned above including probability one can be used to handle uncertainty of various degrees. For example, Zadeh possibility theory based on fuzzy sets is appropriate to model perfect knowledge using a possibility distribution which equals 0 everywhere except the single point, complete ignorance using the possibility distribution which equals 1 everywhere, and any degree of uncertainty between those two limiting cases as well. In probability theory degree of uncertainty can be measured using Shannon entropy [36]. The intention to introduce a possibilistic variant U of uncertainty measure has given rise to a considerable amount of literature on the subject [2], [10], [12], [18], [19], [41], [42].
The first successful attempt to do this was made by Higashi and Klir [18] within the framework of Zadeh possibility theory: a measure of uncertainty called U-uncertainty was introduced. Yager in [41] suggested an opposite point of view for Dempster–Shafer theory and introduced a measure of specificity (not uncertainty). Those results were significantly extended later in [42]. The measures introduced in [18], [41] were inspected in [12]: the U-uncertainty by Higashi and Klir was generalized to Dempster–Shafer theory, a probabilistic interpretation of Yager's specificity was provided. In [10] an approach to comparing specificity of distributions via their relative peakedness (without resorting to numerical indexes) was suggested. Finally, the papers [2], [19] provided a broad survey on recent advances in this area and introduced a unified approach to measuring uncertainty and specificity within the frameworks of various uncertainty theories (probability and possibility theories, Dempster–Shafer theory, etc.) based on a system of uncertainty and specificity axioms.
Analysis of the literature shows that regardless of the specific definition, it is generally accepted that the uncertainty measure U shall meet the following requirements:
- 1.
its value is minimal (usually 0) in the case of perfect knowledge,
- 2.
its value is maximal (usually 1 or ∞) in the case of complete ignorance,
- 3.
it is monotone.
However, the specificity relation can not be defined as above in Pyt'ev possibility theory if numerical values of possibilities and possibility distributions are assigned using distinct scales of possibility values, for example, if the possibility distributions are provided by different experts. In this case, to introduce a measure of uncertainty U satisfying 3 it is necessary to define the appropriate specificity relation first. The paper considers a problem of defining specificity relation in the context of decision making. To make a decision, i.e., to choose a decision d from a set of possible decisions D given a realization y of an observable ill-known element η with values in Y, one usually uses a decision rule which is a function . Mathematically, the decision-making problem is an optimization problem of finding a decision rule called optimal and minimizing the possibility of error. However, many optimal decision rules may exist. For example, in the case of complete ignorance (which can be modeled using the possibility distribution being equal to 1 everywhere) as underlying possibilistic model, any decision rule is optimal, so choosing any decision leads to the same possibility of error being equal to 1, i.e., such a possibilistic model and the corresponding possibility distribution provide no useful information to a decision maker. In contrast, in the case of perfect knowledge (a possibility distribution which equals 0 everywhere except for the single point), only one decision exists such that any optimal decision rule satisfies the condition for any possible realization of an ill-known element η, i.e., such a possibilistic model provides a decision maker with the most precise information.
Let be a set of all optimal decision rules and be a set of all optimal decisions corresponding to a value taken by ill-known element η. A thesis advanced in this paper and used to define the specificity relation is that the narrower is for all possible (i.e., for all values such that possibility of is not zero), the more specific underlying possibility and corresponding possibility distribution are.
Section snippets
Pyt'ev possibility theory as an alternative to probability theory
As Pyt'ev possibility theory is not well known outside Russia, let us consider its foundations first [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [32].
Defining the non-strict specificity relation
It is known that in Zadeh possibility theory based on fuzzy sets, specificity of possibility distributions is evaluated by means of fuzzy set inclusion, and distribution is more specific than iff pointwise. Yet, in Pyt'ev possibility theory such an approach can not be applied. For example, in Zadeh possibility theory the distribution shown with the solid line in Fig. 1 is more specific than the distribution shown with the dotted line, while in Pyt'ev possibility theory they
The role of the specificity relation in decision making
The previous section focuses mainly on the formal definitions of the specificity relations “⪯” and “≺” and description of their formal mathematical properties. At the beginning of that section some considerations explaining the formal definitions are provided. However, those considerations are mainly motivational and illustrative and do not form the strong mathematical basis for defining the introduced relations as the “specificity” ones. This section forms such a basis considering the
Conclusions
The specificity relation on the sets of possibilities and possibility distributions consistent with the decision-making approaches is introduced here within the framework of Pyt'ev possibility theory. The author believes that the results of the paper can be used as a basis for introducing a monotone specificity-preserving numerical measure of uncertainty of possibilities and possibility distributions as well as for developing the methods of group decision-making via combining the possibilistic
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by RFBR, projects number 17-07-00832, 18-07-00424.
References (45)
- et al.
Measures of uncertainty for imprecise probabilities: an axiomatic approach
Int. J. Approx. Reason.
(2010) - et al.
Comparing probability measures using possibility theory: a notion of relative peakedness
Int. J. Approx. Reason.
(2007) Diverse confidence levels in a probabilistic semantics for conditional logics
Artif. Intell.
(1999)On probability–possibility transformations
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1992)On the specificity of a possibility distribution
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1992)Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility
Fuzzy Sets Syst.
(1978)- et al.
Possibilistic and standard probabilistic semantics of conditional knowledge bases
J. Log. Comput.
(1999) Theory of capacities
Ann. Inst. Fourier
(1954)Possibility theory I: the measure- and integral-theoretic groundwork
Int. J. Gen. Syst.
(1997)Possibility theory II: conditional possibility
Int. J. Gen. Syst.
(1997)
Possibility theory III: possibilistic independence
Int. J. Gen. Syst.
Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping
Ann. Math. Stat.
Belief structures, possibility theory and decomposable confidence measures on finite sets
Comput. Artif. Intell.
Qualitative decision rules under uncertainty
Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications
A note on measures of specificity for fuzzy sets
Int. J. Gen. Syst.
Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty
Fuzzy sets and probability: misunderstandings, bridges and gaps
An Introduction to Probability theory and its Applications, vol. I
The axioms of subjective probability
Stat. Sci.
Digital Image Processing
Measures of uncertainty and information based on possibility distributions
Int. J. Gen. Syst.
Cited by (3)
A universal approach to imprecise probabilities in possibility theory
2021, International Journal of Approximate ReasoningData Analysis and Interpretation: Methods of Computer-Aided Measuring Transducer Theory, Morphological Analysis, Possibility Theory, and Subjective Mathematical Modeling
2023, Pattern Recognition and Image AnalysisDivergence of Comparative Possibility Distributions as a Numerical Measure of How Difficult it is to Reach a Consensus
2023, Studies in Systems, Decision and Control