Towards Fully Probabilistic Cooperative Decision Making

  • Miroslav KárnýEmail author
  • Zohreh Alizadeh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11450)


Modern prescriptive decision theories try to support the dynamic decision making (DM) in incompletely-known, stochastic, and complex environments. Distributed solutions single out as the only universal and scalable way to cope with DM complexity and with limited DM resources. They require a solid cooperation scheme, which harmonises disparate aims and abilities of involved agents (human decision makers, DM realising devices and their mixed groups). The paper outlines a distributed fully probabilistic DM. Its flat structuring enables a fully-scalable cooperative DM of adaptive and wise selfish agents. The paper elaborates the cooperation based on sharing and processing agents’ aims in the way, which negligibly increases agents’ deliberation effort, while preserving advantages of distributed DM. Simulation results indicate the strength of the approach and confirm the possibility of using an agent-specific feedback for controlling its cooperation.


Decision making Cooperation Fully probabilistic design Bayesian learning 


  1. 1.
    Aknine, S., Caillou, P., Pinson, S.: Searching Pareto optimal solutions for the problem of forming and restructuring coalitions in multi-agent systems. Group Decis. Negot. 19, 7–37 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azizi, S., Quinn, A.: Hierarchical fully probabilistic design for deliberator-based merging in multiple participant systems. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. PP(99), 1–9 (2016). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barndorff-Nielsen, O.: Information and Exponential Families in Statistical Theory. Wiley, Hoboken (1978)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond, A., Gasser, L.: Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, L., Pu, P.: Survey of preference elicitation methods. Technical report IC/2004/67, HCI Group Ecole Politechnique Federale de Lausanne, Switzerland (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daee, P., Peltola, T., Soare, M., Kaski, S.: Knowledge elicitation via sequential probabilistic inference for high-dimensional prediction. Mach. Learn. 106(9), 1599–1620 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeGroot, M.: Optimal Statistical Decisions. McGraw-Hill, New York City (1970)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Genest, C., Zidek, J.: Combining probability distributions: a critique and annotated bibliography. Stat. Sci. 1(1), 114–148 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guan, P., Raginsky, M., Willett, R.: Online Markov decision processes with Kullback Leibler control cost. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 59(6), 1423–1438 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harsanyi, J.: Games with incomplete information played by Bayesian players. I-III. Management Science 50(Suppl. 12), 1763–1893 (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kárný, M.: Adaptive systems: local approximators? In: Workshop on Adaptive Systems in Control and Signal Processing, pp. 129–134. IFAC, Glasgow (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kárný, M.: Recursive estimation of high-order Markov chains: approximation by finite mixtures. Inf. Sci. 326, 188–201 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kárný, M.: Implementable prescriptive decision making. In: Guy, T., Kárný, M., D., D.R.I., Wolpert, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the NIPS 2016 Workshop on Imperfect Decision Makers, vol. 58, pp. 19–30. JMLR (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kárný, M., et al.: Optimized Bayesian Dynamic Advising: Theory and Algorithms. Springer, London (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kárný, M., Guy, T.V.: Fully probabilistic control design. Syst. Control Lett. 55(4), 259–265 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kárný, M., Guy, T.V., Bodini, A., Ruggeri, F.: Cooperation via sharing of probabilistic information. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Stud. 1, 139–162 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kárný, M., Guy, T.: On support of imperfect Bayesian participants. In: Guy, T., et al. (eds.) Decision Making with Imperfect Decision Makers. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol. 28, pp. 29–56. Springer, Berlin (2012). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kárný, M., Herzallah, R.: Scalable harmonization of complex networks with local adaptive controllers. IEEE Trans. SMC: Syst. 47(3), 394–404 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kárný, M., Kroupa, T.: Axiomatisation of fully probabilistic design. Inf. Sci. 186(1), 105–113 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulhavý, R., Zarrop, M.B.: On a general concept of forgetting. Int. J. Control 58(4), 905–924 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kullback, S., Leibler, R.: On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Stat. 22, 79–87 (1951)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewicki, R., Weiss, S., Lewin, D.: Models of conflict, negotiation and 3rd party intervention - a review and synthesis. J. Organ. Behav. 13(3), 209–252 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mattingley, J., Wang, Y., Boyd, S.: Receding horizon control. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 31(3), 52–65 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mayne, D.: Model predictive control: recent developments and future promise. Automatica 50, 2967–2986 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mine, H., Osaki, S.: Markovian Decision Processes. Elsevier, New York (1970)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelsen, R.: An Introduction to Copulas. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nurmi, H.: Resolving group choice paradoxes using probabilistic and fuzzy concepts. Group Decis. Negot. 10, 177–198 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peterka, V.: Bayesian system identification. In: Eykhoff, P. (ed.) Trends and Progress in System Identification, pp. 239–304. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Savage, L.: Foundations of Statistics. Wiley, Hoboken (1954)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sečkárová, V.: Cross-entropy based combination of discrete probability distributions for distributed decision making. Ph.D. thesis, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics., Prague (2015). Submitted in May 2015. Successfully defended on 14 September 2015Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sečkárová, V.: Weighted probabilistic opinion pooling based on cross-entropy. In: Arik, S., Huang, T., Lai, W.K., Liu, Q. (eds.) ICONIP 2015. LNCS, vol. 9490, pp. 623–629. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sečkárová, V.: On supra-Bayesian weighted combination of available data determined by Kerridge inaccuracy and entropy. Pliska Stud. Math. Bulgar. 22, 159–168 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shore, J., Johnson, R.: Axiomatic derivation of the principle of maximum entropy and the principle of minimum cross-entropy. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 26(1), 26–37 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Simpson, E.: Combined decision making with multiple agents. Ph.D. thesis, Hertford College, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Simpson, E., Roberts, S., Psorakis, I., Smith, A.: Dynamic Bayesian combination of multiple imperfect classifiers. In: Guy, T., Kárný, M., Wolpert, D. (eds.) Decision Making and Imperfection. Studies in Computation Intelligence, vol. 474, pp. 1–35. Springer, Berlin (2013). Scholar
  36. 36.
    Todorov, E.: Linearly-solvable Markov decision problems. In: Schölkopf, B., et al. (eds.) Advances in Neural Information Processing, pp. 1369–1376. MIT Press, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Šindelář, J., Vajda, I., Kárný, M.: Stochastic control optimal in the Kullback sense. Kybernetika 44(1), 53–60 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wald, A.: Statistical Decision Functions. Wiley, London (1950)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wallenius, J., Dyer, J., Fishburn, P., Steuer, R., Zionts, S., Deb, K.: Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Manag. Sci. 54(7), 1336–1349 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J.: Mechanism design for automated negotiation and its applicatin to task oriented domains. Artif. Intell. 86, 195–244 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Information Theory and AutomationPrague 8Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations