Qualitative Possibilistic Influence Diagrams

Authors: Wided GuezGuez, Nahla Ben Amor, Khaled Mellouli

Abstract:

Influence diagrams (IDs) are one of the most commonly used graphical decision models for reasoning under uncertainty. The quantification of IDs which consists in defining conditional probabilities for chance nodes and utility functions for value nodes is not always obvious. In fact, decision makers cannot always provide exact numerical values and in some cases, it is more easier for them to specify qualitative preference orders. This work proposes an adaptation of standard IDs to the qualitative framework based on possibility theory.

Keywords: decision making, influence diagrams, qualitative utility, possibility theory.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1055899

References:

[1] A. Akari, microeconomie du consommateur et du producteur, pages 35:95, 2000.
[2] N. Ben Amor, S.Benferhat and K.Mellouli, Anytime propagation algorithm for min-based possibilistic graphs, Soft Computing a fusion of foundations methodologies and applications, Springer Verlag, Vol 8, pages 150:161, 2001.
[3] N. Ben Amor. Qualitative Possibilistic Graphical Models: From Independence to Propagation Algorithms. Ph.D. dissertation, 2002.
[4] G. F. Cooper, A method for using belief networks as influence diagrams, Fourth workshop on uncertainty in arti¯cial intelligence, 1988.
[5] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Possibility theory, an approach to computerized processing of uncertainty, Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1988.
[6] D. Dubois and .H Prade,Didier Dubois and Henri Prade, An introductory survey of possibility theory and its recent developments, 1998.
[7] D. Dubois, H. Prade and P. Smets, New semantics for quantitative possibility theory, , 2nd International Symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications, Ithaca, new York, 2001.
[8] R.A. Howard and J.E. Matheson, Influence diagrams. In the principles and applications of decision analysis, Vol II, R.A Howard and J.E Matheson (eds). Strategic decisions group, Menlo Park, Calif, 1984.
[9] F.V. Jensen, Introduction to Bayesian networks, UCL Press, 1996.
[10] F.V. Jensen, Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, statistics for engineering and information science, 2002.
[11] J. Kim and J. Pearl, Convince, A conversational inference consolidation engine, IEEE Trains. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 17, pages 120:132, 1987.
[12] J.Pearl, Causality Models, Reasoning and Inference, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[13] P.P. Shenoy , A comparison of graphical techniques for decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol 78, pages 1:21, 1994.
[14] P. H. Giang, P.P. Shenoy, Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory, European journal of operational research, Vol 162 No.2, pages 450:467, 2005.
[15] R. D. Shachter, Evaluating influence diagrams, Operation Research 34 pages 871:882, 1986.
[16] R. D. Shachter and M. A. Poet, Decision making using probabilistic inference methods,In Proceedings of 8th Conference on Uncertainty in Arti¯cial Intelligence, pages 276:283, 1992.
[17] J. Von Neumann and O.Morgenstern, theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton University Press, 1948.
[18] N. L. Zhang, Probabilistic inference in influence diagrams, In Proceedings of 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 514-522, 1998.