IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v195y2009i1p223-238.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative possibilistic influence diagrams based on qualitative possibilistic utilities

Author

Listed:
  • Guezguez, Wided
  • Ben Amor, Nahla
  • Mellouli, Khaled

Abstract

This paper proposes a new approach for decision making under uncertainty based on influence diagrams and possibility theory. The so-called qualitative possibilistic influence diagrams extend standard influence diagrams in order to avoid difficulties attached to the specification of both probability distributions relative to chance nodes and utilities relative to value nodes. In fact, generally, it is easier for experts to quantify dependencies between chance nodes qualitatively via possibility distributions and to provide a preferential relation between different consequences. In such a case, the possibility theory offers a suitable modeling framework. Different combinations of the quantification between chance and utility nodes offer several kinds of possibilistic influence diagrams. This paper focuses on qualitative ones and proposes an indirect evaluation method based on their transformation into possibilistic networks. The proposed approach is implemented via a possibilistic influence diagram toolbox (PIDT).

Suggested Citation

  • Guezguez, Wided & Ben Amor, Nahla & Mellouli, Khaled, 2009. "Qualitative possibilistic influence diagrams based on qualitative possibilistic utilities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 223-238, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:195:y:2009:i:1:p:223-238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00169-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dubois, Didier & Prade, Henri & Sabbadin, Regis, 2001. "Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 459-478, February.
    2. Ross D. Shachter, 1986. "Evaluating Influence Diagrams," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 871-882, December.
    3. Shenoy, Prakash P., 1994. "A comparison of graphical techniques for decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Giang, Phan H. & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2005. "Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 450-467, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tan, Kim Hua & Zhan, YuanZhu & Ji, Guojun & Ye, Fei & Chang, Chingter, 2015. "Harvesting big data to enhance supply chain innovation capabilities: An analytic infrastructure based on deduction graph," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 223-233.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Prakash Shenoy, 1998. "Game Trees For Decision Analysis," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 149-171, April.
    2. Andrew J. Keith & Darryl K. Ahner, 2021. "A survey of decision making and optimization under uncertainty," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 319-353, May.
    3. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    4. Ruth Y. Dicdican & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2005. "Relating multiobjective decision trees to the multiobjective risk impact analysis method," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 95-108.
    5. Concha Bielza & Peter Müller & David Ríos Insua, 1999. "Decision Analysis by Augmented Probability Simulation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(7), pages 995-1007, July.
    6. Jorge Ramos & Benjamin Drakeford & Ana Madiedo & Joana Costa & Francisco Leitão, 2024. "A Bayesian Approach to Infer the Sustainable Use of Artificial Reefs in Fisheries and Recreation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Manuele Leonelli & Jim Q. Smith, 2017. "Directed Expected Utility Networks," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 108-125, June.
    8. Guo, Rui & Shenoy, Prakash P., 1996. "A note on Kirkwood's algebraic method for decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 628-638, September.
    9. Lander, Diane M. & Pinches, George E., 1998. "Challenges to the Practical Implementation of Modeling and Valuing Real Options," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(3, Part 2), pages 537-567.
    10. Shenoy, Prakash P., 2000. "Valuation network representation and solution of asymmetric decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 579-608, March.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:1:y:2006:i::p:162-173 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Grabisch, Michel, 2006. "Representation of preferences over a finite scale by a mean operator," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 131-151, September.
    13. Fernandez del Pozo, J. A. & Bielza, C. & Gomez, M., 2005. "A list-based compact representation for large decision tables management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(3), pages 638-662, February.
    14. Els Hannes & Diana Kusumastuti & Maikel Espinosa & Davy Janssens & Koen Vanhoof & Geert Wets, 2012. "Mental maps and travel behaviour: meanings and models," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 143-165, April.
    15. Bielza, Concha & Gómez, Manuel & Shenoy, Prakash P., 2011. "A review of representation issues and modeling challenges with influence diagrams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 227-241, June.
    16. Zitrou, Athena & Bedford, Tim & Walls, Lesley, 2010. "Bayes geometric scaling model for common cause failure rates," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 70-76.
    17. Tan, Kim Hua & Zhan, YuanZhu & Ji, Guojun & Ye, Fei & Chang, Chingter, 2015. "Harvesting big data to enhance supply chain innovation capabilities: An analytic infrastructure based on deduction graph," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 223-233.
    18. Chateauneuf, A. & Grabisch, M. & Rico, A., 2008. "Modeling attitudes toward uncertainty through the use of the Sugeno integral," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1084-1099, December.
    19. Robert F. Nease JR, 1996. "Do Violations of the Axioms of Expected Utility Theory Threaten Decision Analysis?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(4), pages 399-403, October.
    20. Gia Sirbiladze & Irina Khutsishvili & Otar Badagadze & Mikheil Kapanadze, 2016. "More Precise Decision-Making Methodology in the Temporalized Body of Evidence. Application in the Information Technology Management," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1469-1502, November.
    21. Khakzad, Nima, 2021. "Optimal firefighting to prevent domino effects: Methodologies based on dynamic influence diagram and mathematical programming," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:195:y:2009:i:1:p:223-238. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.