# Hybrid Probabilistic-Possibilistic Mixtures and Utility Functions

## Abstract

A basic building block in the standard mathematics of decision under uncertainty is the notion of probabilistic mixture. In order to generalize decision theory to non probabilistic uncertainty, one approach is to generalize mixture sets. In the recent past it has been proved that generalized mixtures can be non trivially defined, and they have been instrumental in the development of possibilistic utility theory. This paper characterizes the families of operations involved in generalized mixtures, due to a previous result on the characterization of the pairs of continuous t-norm and t-conorm such that the former is conditionally distributive over the latter. What is obtained is a family of mixtures that combine probabilistic and possibilistic mixtures via a threshold. It is based on a restricted family of t-conorm/ t-norm pairs which are very special ordinal sums. Any practically useful theory of pseudo-additive measures must use such special pairs of operations in order to extend the additivity property, and the notion of probabilistic independence.

## Keywords

Binary Tree Probabilistic Mixture Possibility Measure Triangular Norm Probabilistic Independence## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- 1.Aczél, J. (1969) Lectures on Functional Equations and their Applications. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 2.Benvenuti, P., Mesiar, R. (submitted) Pseudo-arithmetical operations as a basis for the general measure and integration theory. Inf. SciencesGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bertoluzza, C. (1993) On the distributivity between t-norms and t-conorms. In Proc. Second Internat. Conference on Fuzzy Systems,FUZZ-IEEE ‘83, San Francisco, volume
**I**, 140–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Cox, R. (1946) Probability, frequency, and reasonable expectation. American Journal of Physics
**14**(1), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Dubois D. (1986) Generalized probabilistic independence and its implications for utility. Operations Res. Letters 5, 255–260Google Scholar
- 6.Dubois D., Fodor,J.C., Prade, H., Roubens,M. (1996) Aggregation of decomposable measures with applications to utility theory. Theory and Decision
**41**, 59–95Google Scholar - 7.Dubois D., Godo,L., Prade, H., Zapico, A. (1998) Making decision in a qualitative setting: from decision under uncertainty to case-based decision.(Eds. A.G. Cohn, L. Schubert, S.C. Shapiro) Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference “Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning” (KR ’ 98), Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc, San Francisco, 594–605Google Scholar
- 8.V. Cutello and J. Montero. Fuzzy Rationality and Utility theory axioms. In
*Proceedings of NAFIPS’99*, North American Fuzzy Information Processing Society Conference, New York, NY, 1999, pp. 332–336.Google Scholar - 9.G. Debreu Topological methods in cardinal utility theory In K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin, P. Suppes, Eds.
*Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences*, Stanford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar - 10.D. Dubois and H. Prade,
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications*( Academic Press, New York, 1980 ).Google Scholar - 11.J.C. Fodor and M. Roubens. Preference modelling and aggregation procedures with valued binary relations. In: R. Lowen and M. Roubens, Eds.,
*Fuzzy Logic*( Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam, 1993 ), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.J.C. Fodor and M. Roubens. Valued preference structures.
*European Journal of Operational Research***79**: 277–286 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 13.J. Fodor and M. Roubens
*Fuzzy modelling and multicriteria decision support*. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1994.Google Scholar - 14.L. Kitainik.
*Fuzzy Decision Procedures with Binary Relations*. Kluwer Academic Pub., Boston, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 15.J. Montero and J. Tejada, A necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of Orlovsky’s choice set,
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems***26**(1988) 121–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 16.J. Montero, J. Tejada and V.Cutello. A general model for deriving preference structures from data.
*European Journal of Operational Research*,**98**: 98–100, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 17.K. Nakamura. Preference relations on a set of fuzzy utilities as a basis for decision making.
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems*, 20: 147–162, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 18.A.M. Norwich and I.B. Turksen. A model for the measurement of membership and the consequences of its empirical implementation.
*Fuzzy Sets and Systems*,**12**: 1–25 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 19.S.E. Orlovski.
*Calculus of Decomposable Properties*,*Fuzzy Sets and Decisions*. Allerton Press, New York, 1994.Google Scholar - 20.P.K. Pattanaik,
*Voting and collective choice*( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971 ).Google Scholar - 21.S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A modern approach. Prentice Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
- 22.A.K. Sen,
*Collective choice and social welfare*( Holden-Day, San Francisco, 1970 ).Google Scholar - 23.U. Thole, H.J. Zimmermann and P. Zysno. On the suitability of minimum and product operators for the intersection of fuzzy sets.
*Fuzzy sets and Systems*,**2**: 167–180 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.I.B. Turksen. Measurement of membership functions and their acquisition.
*Fuzzy sets and Systems*, 40: 5–38 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.L.A. Zadeh, Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings,
*Information Science***3**(1971) 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.H.J. Zimmerman,
*Fuzzy Sets Theory and its Applications*( Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, 1985 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar