4.6 Article

Bayesian decision support for complex systems with many distributed experts

Journal

ANNALS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
Volume 235, Issue 1, Pages 517-542

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10479-015-1957-7

Keywords

Bayesian decision theory; Combination of expert judgement; Decision support systems; Graphical models; Uncertainty handling

Funding

  1. EPSRC [EP/K039628/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K039628/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Complex decision support systems often consist of component modules which, encoding the judgements of panels of domain experts, describe a particular sub-domain of the overall system. Ideally these modules need to be pasted together to provide a comprehensive picture of the whole process. The challenge of building such an integrated system is that, whilst the overall qualitative features are common knowledge to all, the explicit forecasts and their associated uncertainties are only expressed individually by each panel, resulting from its own analysis. The structure of the integrated system therefore needs to facilitate the coherent piecing together of these separate evaluations. If such a system is not available there is a serious danger that this might drive decision makers to incoherent and so indefensible policy choices. In this paper we develop a graphically based framework which embeds a set of conditions, consisting of the agreement usually made in practice of certain probability and utility models, that, if satisfied in a given context, are sufficient to ensure the composite system is truly coherent. Furthermore, we develop new message passing algorithms entailing the transmission of expected utility scores between the panels, that enable the uncertainties within each module to be fully accounted for in the evaluation of the available alternatives in these composite systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available