On the Decomposition of Min-based Possibilistic Influence Diagrams

Salem Benferhat, Hadja Faiza Khellaf-Haned, Ismahane Zeddigha

Abstract

Min-based possibilistic influence diagrams allow a compact modelling of decision problems under uncertainty. Uncertainty and preferential relations are expressed on the same structure by using ordinal data. Like probabilistic influence diagrams, min-based possibilistic influence diagrams contain three types of nodes: chance, decision and utility nodes. Uncertainty is described by means of possibility distributions on chance nodes and preferences are expressed as satisfaction degrees on utility nodes. In many applications, it may be natural to represent expert knowledge and preferences separately and treat all nodes similarly. This paper shows how an influence diagram can be equivalently represented by two possibilistic networks: the first one represents knowledge of an agent and the second one represents agent’s preferences. Thus, the decision evaluation process is based on more compact possibilistic network.

References

  1. Ajroud, A., Omri, M., Youssef, H., and Benferhat, S. (2012). Loopy belief propagation in bayesian networks : origin and possibilistic perspectives. CoRR, abs/1206.0976.
  2. Amor, N. B., Benferhat, S., Dubois, D., Mellouli, K., and Prade, H. (2002). A theoretical framework for possibilistic independence in a weakly ordered setting. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(2):117-155.
  3. Amor, N. B., Benferhat, S., and Mellouli, K. (2003). Anytime propagation algorithm for min-based possibilistic graphs. Soft Comput., 8(2):150-161.
  4. Anzilli, L. (2013). A possibilistic approach to investment decision making. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 21(02):201-221.
  5. Benferhat, S., Khellaf, F., and Zeddigha, I. (2013). A possibilistic graphical model for handling decision problems under uncertainty. In The 8th conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology, EUSFLAT, Milano, Italy.
  6. Borgelt, C., Gebhardt, J., and Kruse, R. (1998). Inference methods. In Handbook of Fuzzy Computation, chapter F1.2. Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, United Kingdom.
  7. Bouchon-Meunier, B., Coletti, G., and Marsala, C. (2002). Independence and possibilistic conditioning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 35:107- 123.
  8. Boutouhami, K. and Khellaf, F. (2015). An approximate possibilistic graphical model for computing optimistic qualitative decision. In In proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications AIFU, Dubai UAE, pages 183-196.
  9. de Campos, M. L. and Huete, F. J. (1999). Independence concepts in possibility theory. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 103:487-505.
  10. Denardo, E., Feinberg, E., and Rothblum, U. (2012). Splitting in a finite markov decision problem. SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 39(4):38.
  11. Dubois, D., Berre, D. L., Prade, H., and Sabbadin, R. (1998). Logical representation and computation of optimal decisions in a qualitative setting. In AAAI-98, pages 588-593.
  12. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., and Prade, H. (2013). Decisionmaking under ordinal preferences and comparative uncertainty. CoRR, abs/1302.1537.
  13. Dubois, D., Godo, L., Prade, H., and Zapico, A. (1999). On the possibilistic decision model: from decision under uncertainty to case-based decision. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and KnowledgeBased Systems, 7(6):631-670.
  14. Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1988). Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty . Plenum Press, New York.
  15. Dubois, D. and Prade, H. (1995). Possibility theory as a basis for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 2, pages 1924-1930, San Francisco, CA, USA. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  16. Dubois, D., Prade, H., and Sabbadin, R. (2001). Decisiontheoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory . European Journal of Operational Research, 128(3):459-478.
  17. Garcia, L. and Sabbadin, R. (2006). Possibilistic influence diagrams. In 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'06), pages 372-376, Riva del Garda, Italy. IOS Press.
  18. Giang, P. and Shenoy, P. (2005). Two axiomatic approaches to decision making using possibility theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 162(2):450-467.
  19. Guezguez, W. (2012). Possibilistic Decision Theory: From Theoretical Foundations to Influence Diagrams Methodology. Phd thesis, Paul Sabatier University, France.
  20. Guezguez, W., Amor, N. B., and Mellouli, K. (2009). Qualitative possibilistic influence diagrams based on qualitative possibilistic utilities. European Journal of Operational Research, 195(1):223-238.
  21. Howard, R. and Matheson, J. (1984). Influence Diagrams. In Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, pages 721-762. Strategic Decisions Group.
  22. Huang, C. and Darwiche, A. (1996). Inference in belief networks: A procedural guide. Int. J. Approx. Reasoning, 15(3):225-263.
  23. Lauritzen, S. and Nilsson, D. (2001). Representing and solving decision problems with limited information. Manage. Sci., 47(9):1235-1251.
  24. Shenoy, P. (1994). A comparison of graphical techniques for decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 78:1-21.
  25. Sniedovich, M. (2010). Dynamic Programming: Foundations and Principles; 2nd ed. Pure and Applied Mathematics. CRC Press, Hoboken.
  26. Tatman, J. and Shachter, R. (1990). Dynamic programming and influence diagrams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 20(2):365-379.
  27. Whalen, T. (1984). Decision making under uncertainty with various assumptions about available information. IEEE Trans. on systems, Man and Cybernetics, (14):888-900.
  28. Zadeh, L. (1978). Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 1:3-28.
  29. Zhang, N. (1998). Probabilistic inference in influence diagrams. In Computational Intelligence, pages 514- 522.
  30. Zhang, N. (2013). Probabilistic inference in influence diagrams. CoRR, abs/1301.7416.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Benferhat S., Khellaf-Haned H. and Zeddigha I. (2016). On the Decomposition of Min-based Possibilistic Influence Diagrams . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-172-4, pages 117-128. DOI: 10.5220/0005703501170128


in Bibtex Style

@conference{icaart16,
author={Salem Benferhat and Hadja Faiza Khellaf-Haned and Ismahane Zeddigha},
title={On the Decomposition of Min-based Possibilistic Influence Diagrams},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},
year={2016},
pages={117-128},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0005703501170128},
isbn={978-989-758-172-4},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - On the Decomposition of Min-based Possibilistic Influence Diagrams
SN - 978-989-758-172-4
AU - Benferhat S.
AU - Khellaf-Haned H.
AU - Zeddigha I.
PY - 2016
SP - 117
EP - 128
DO - 10.5220/0005703501170128