Rank-dependent probability weighting in sequential decision problems under uncertainty

ICAPS 2008 - Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 148-155

  Jeantet, Gildas ^a   Spanjaard, Olivier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; DECISION THEORY; DECISION TREES; OPTIMAL SYSTEMS; OPTIMIZATION; SCHEDULING;

ALGORITHMIC PROBLEMS; DECISION PROBLEMS; DIFFERENT SIZES; EXPECTED UTILITIES; IMPLICIT ENUMERATIONS; NP-HARD PROBLEMS; OPTIMAL STRATEGIES; OPTIMALITY PRINCIPLES; PROBABILITY WEIGHTING; RANK DEPENDENTS; RANK-DEPENDENT UTILITIES; REAL-WORLD;

TREES (MATHEMATICS);

EID: 58849133847     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Allais, M. 1953. Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats de l'école américaine. Econometrica 21:503-546.
2. Allais, M. 1997. An outline of my main contributions to economic science. The American Economic Review 87(6):3-12.
3. Blythe, J. 1999. Decision-theoretic planning. AI Mag. 20.
4. Boutilier, C.; Dean, T.; and Hanks, S. 1999. Decisiontheoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of AI Research 11:1-94.
5. Dean, T.; Kaelbling, L.; Kirman, J.; and Nicholson, A. 1993.
6. Planning with deadlines in stochastic domains. In Proc. of the 11th AAAI, 574-579.
7. Handa, J. 1977. Risk, probabilities and a new theory of cardinal utility. Journal of Political Economics 85:97-122.
8. Jaffray, J.-Y., and Nielsen, T. 2006. An operational approach to rational decision making based on rank dependent utility. European J. of Operational Research 169(1):226-246.
9. Kaebling, L.; Littman, M.; and Cassandra, A. 1999. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence 101:99-134.
10. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263-291.
11. Liu, Y., and Koenig, S. 2008. An exact algorithm for solving mdps under risk-sensitve planning objectives with oneswitch utility functions. In Proc. of the Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS).
12. McClennen, E. 1990. Rationality and Dynamic choice: Foundational Explorations. Cambridge University Press.
13. Morin, T. 1982. Monotonicity and the principle of optimality. J. of Math. Analysis and Applications 86:665-674.
14. Perea, F., and Puerto, J. 2007. Dynamic programming analysis of the TV game "Who wants to be a millionaire?". European Journal of Operational Research 183:805-811.
15. Perny, P.; Spanjaard, O.; and Storme, L.-X. 2007. State space search for risk-averse agents. In 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2353-2358.
16. Quiggin, J. 1993. Generalized Expected Utility Theory: The Rank-Dependent Model. Kluwer.
17. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision Analysis: Introductory Lectures on Choices under Uncertainty. Addison-Wesley.
18. Shachter, R. 1986. Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research 34:871-882.
19. von Neuman, J., and Morgenstern, O. 1947. Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press.