A New Approach on ρ to Decision Making Using Belief Functions Under Incomplete Information

  • Yuliang Fan
  • Peter Deer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3809)


This paper discusses an expected utility approach on ρ to decision making under incomplete information using the belief function framework. In order to make rational decisions under incomplete information, some subjective assumptions often need to be made because of the interval representations of the belief functions. We assume that a decision maker may have some evidence from different sources about the value of ρ, and this evidence can also be represented by a belief function or can result in a unique consonant belief function that is constrained by the evidence over the same frame of discernment. We thus propose a novel approach based on the two-level reasoning Transferable Belief Model and calculate the expected utility value of ρ using pignistic probabilities transformed from the interval-based belief functions. The result can then be used to make a choice between overlapped expected value intervals. Our assumption is between the strongest assumption of a warranted point value of ρ and the weakest assumption of a uniform probability distribution for an unwarranted ρ.


Hide Sector Belief Function Credal Level Focal Element Basic Probability Assignment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory and data fusion in poorly informed environments. Control and Engineering Practice 2(5), 811–823 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dempster, A.P.: A generalisation of Bayesian inference (with discussion). Journals of the Royal Statistical Society B 30, 205–232 (1968)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemen, R.T., Winkler, R.L.: Combining Probability Distributions From Experts in Risk Analysis. Risk Analysis 19(2), 187–203 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lesh, S.A.: An evidential theory approach to judgement-based decision making, PhD thesis, Dept. of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strat, T.M.: Decision Analysis Using Belief Functions. In: Yager, R.R., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: On several representations of an uncertain body of evidence. In: Gupta, M.M., Sanchez, E. (eds.) Fuzzy Information and Decision Process, pp. 167–181. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nguyen, H.T., Walker, E.A.: On Decision Making Using Belief Functions. In: Yager, R.R., Fedrizzi, M., Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) Advances in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence. John Wiley and Sons, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smets, P., Kennes, R.: The transferable belief model. Artificial Intelligence 66, 191–234 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schubert, J.: On Pin a Decision-Theoretic Apparatus of Dempster-Shafer Theory. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 13, 185–200 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smets, P.: Decision Making in a Context where Uncertainty is Represented by Belief Functions. In: Srivastava, R., Mock, T.J. (eds.) Belief Functions in Business Decisions, pp. 17–61. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: Representing partial ignorance. IEEE System Machine and Cybernetic 26, 361–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: The principle of minimum specificity as a basis for evidential reasoning. In: IPMU, pp. 75–84 (1986)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: New semantics for quantitative possibility theory. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and Their Applications, Ithaca, NY, USA, pp. 152–161 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smets, P.: Probability, Possibility, Belief: Which and Where. In: Gabbay, D., Smets, P., Smets, P. (eds.) Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems. Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision, vol. 1, pp. 1–24. Kluwer, Doordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H., Smets, P.: A definition of subjective possibility. Operations Research and Decisions 4, 7–22 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuliang Fan
    • 1
  • Peter Deer
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information and Communication TechnologyGriffith University, Gold Coast CampusAustralia

Personalised recommendations