GAI Networks for Utility Elicitation

Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, KR 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 224-233

  Gonzales, Christophe ^a   Perny, Patrice ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

Decision theory; GAI decomposable utilities; graphical representations; multiattribute expected utility; preference elicitation

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYESIAN NETWORKS; DECISION MAKING; GRAPHIC METHODS;

EXPECTED UTILITY; GENERALIZED ADDITIVELY DECOMPOSABLE UTILITY FUNCTION ON A PRODUCT SET; GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS; MULTI-ATTRIBUTES; MULTIATTRIBUTE EXPECTED UTILITY; MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY; PREFERENCE ELICITATION; PREFERENCE REPRESENTATION; UTILITY ELICITATIONS; UTILITY FUNCTIONS;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 38349088487     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Bacchus, F., and Grove, A. 1995. Graphical models for preference and utility. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
2. Becker, A., and Geiger, D. 2001. A sufficiently fast algorithm for finding close to optimal clique trees. Artificial Intelligence 125(1-2):3-17.
3. Boutilier, C.; Bacchus, F.; and Brafman, R. I. 2001. UCP-networks; a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In Proceedings of Seventeenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 56-64.
4. Boutilier, C.; Brafman, R. I.; Hoos, H. H.; and Poole, D. 1999. Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
5. Buntine, W. 1994. Operations for learning with graphical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 2:159-225.
6. Chajewska, U., and Koller, D. 2000. Utilities as random variables: Density estimation and structure discovery. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence.
7. Chajewska, U.; Koller, D.; and Parr, R. 2000. Making rational decisions using adaptive utility elicitation. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
8. Cowell, R.; Dawid, A.; Lauritzen, S.; and Spiegelhalter, D. 1999. Probabilistic Networks and Expert Systems. Statistics for Engineering and Information Science. Springer-Verlag.
9. Darwiche, A., and Hopkins, M. 2001. Using recursive decomposition to construct elimination orders, jointrees, and dtrees. In Proceedings of ECSQARU'01, 180-191.
10. 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, 1925-1930.
11. Fishburn, P. C. 1970. Utility Theory for Decision Making. NewYork: Wiley.
12. Halpern, J., and Chu, F. 2003a. Great expectations. part I: On the customizability of generalized expected utility. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 291-296.
13. Halpern, J., and Chu, F. 2003b. Great expectations. part II: Generalized expected utility as a universal decision rule. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 297-302.
14. Heckerman, D. 1995. A tutorial on learning with bayesian networks. Technical Report MSR-TR-95-06, Microsoft Research.
15. Howard, R. A., and Matheson, J. E. 1984. Influence diagrams. In Howard, R. A., and Matheson, J. E., eds., Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, volume 2. Strategic Decisions Group. 719-762.
16. Jensen, F. V.; Lauritzen, S. L.; and Olesen, K. G. 1990. Bayesian updating in causal probabilistic networks by local computations. Computational Statistics Quarterly 4:269-282.
17. Jensen, F. 1996. An introduction to Bayesian Networks. Taylor and Francis.
18. Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives - Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge university Press.
19. Kjærulff, U. 1990. Triangulation of graphs - algorithms giving small total state space. Technical Report R-90-09, Dept. of Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University.
20. Krantz, D. H.; Luce, R. D.; Suppes, P.; and Tversky, A. 1971. Foundations of Measurement (Additive and Polynomial Representations), volume 1. New York: Academic Press.
21. Olesen, K., and Madsen, A. 2002. Maximal prime sub-graph decomposition of bayesian networks. EEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B 32(1):21-31.
22. Rose, D. 1970. Triangulated graphs and the elimination process. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 32:597-609.
23. Savage, L. J. 1954. The foundations of statistics. Dover. Schmeidler, D. 1986. Integral representation without additivity. In Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, volume 97, 255-261.
24. Shachter, R. 1986. Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research 34:871-882.
25. Shafer, G. 1996. Probabilistic expert systems. ociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
26. von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princetown, New Jersey: Princetown University Press.
27. Wakker, P. P. 1989. Additive Representations of Preferences, A New Foundation of Decision Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.