A Framework for Solving Hybrid Influence Diagrams Containing Deterministic Conditional Distributions

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.1120.0230

References

  • Bielza C, Müller P, Ríos Insua D. Decision analysis by augmented probability simulation. Management Sci. (1999) 45(7):995–1007LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Black F, Scholes M. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. J. Political Econom. (1973) 81(3):1323–1352CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Burden RL, Faires JD. Numerical Analysis (2010) 9th ed.(Brooks Cole, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Cano A, Gómez M, Moral S. A forward-backward Monte Carlo method for solving influence diagrams. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2006) 42(1–2):119–135CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Charnes JM, Shenoy PP. Multi-stage Monte Carlo method for solving influence diagrams using local computation. Management Sci. (2004) 50(3):405–418LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cinicioglu EN, Shenoy PP. Arc reversals in hybrid Bayesian networks with deterministic variables. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2009) 50(5):763–777CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cobb BR. Influence diagrams with continuous decision variables and non-Gaussian uncertainties. Decision Anal. (2007) 4(3):136–155LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Cobb BR, Shenoy PP, Bacchus F, Jaakkola T. Hybrid Bayesian networks with linear deterministic variables. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. 21st Conf. (2005a) (AUAI Press, Corvallis, OR) 136–144Google Scholar
  • Cobb BR, Shenoy PP, Godo L. Nonlinear deterministic relationships in Bayesian networks. Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: 8th European Conf., ECSQARU 2005 (2005b) (Springer, Berlin) 27–38Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3571CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cobb BR, Shenoy PP. Decision making with hybrid influence diagrams using mixtures of truncated exponentials. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2008) 186(1):261–275CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cobb BR, Shenoy PP, Rumí R. Approximating probability density functions in hybrid Bayesian networks with mixtures of truncated exponentials. Statist. Comput. (2006) 16(3):293–308CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dirac PAM. The physical interpretation of the quantum dynamics. Proc. Royal Soc. London, Ser. A (1927) 113(765):621–641CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dirac PAM. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (1958) 4th ed.(Oxford University Press, London) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Geske R, Johnson HE. The Americal put option valued analytically. J. Finance (1984) 39(5):1511–1524CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hertz DB. Risk analysis in capital investment. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1964) 42(1):95–106Google Scholar
  • Hoskins RF. Generalised Functions (1979) (Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK) Google Scholar
  • Howard RA. Proximal decision analysis. Management Sci. (1971) 17(9):845–879LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Howard RA, Matheson JE, Howard RA, Matheson JE. Influence diagrams. Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis (1984) II(Strategic Decisions Group, Menlo Park, CA) 719–762Google Scholar
  • Howard RA, Matheson JE. Influence diagrams. Decision Anal. (2005) 2(3):127–143LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kanwal RP. Generalized Functions: Theory and Technique (1998) 2nd ed.(Birkhaüser, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Keefer DL, Bodily SE. Three-point approximations for continuous random variables. Management Sci. (1983) 29(5):595–609LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Keelin TW, Powley BW. Quantile-parameterized distributions. Decision Anal. (2011) 8(3):206–219LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kozlov AV, Koller D, Geiger D, Shenoy PP. Nonuniform dynamic discretization in hybrid networks. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. 13th Conf. (1997) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco) 302–313Google Scholar
  • Kschischang FR, Frey BJ, Loeliger H-A. Factor graphs and the sum-product algorithm. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory (2001) 47(2):498–519CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kullback S, Leibler RA. On information and sufficiency. Ann. Math. Statist. (1951) 22:76–86CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lauritzen SL, Nilsson D. Representing and solving decision problems with limited information. Management Sci. (2001) 47(9):1235–1251LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Li Y, Shenoy PP, Grünwald P, Spirtes P. Solving hybrid influence diagrams with deterministic variables. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. 26th Conf. (2010) (AUAI Press, Corvallis, OR) 322–331Google Scholar
  • Miller AC, Rice TR. Discrete approximations of probability distributions. Management Sci. (1983) 29(3):352–362LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Moral S, Rumí R, Salmerón A, Benferhat S, Besnard P. Mixtures of truncated exponentials in hybrid Bayesian networks. Symbolic and Quant. Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty: 6th Eur. Conf., ECSQARU-2001 (2001) (Springer, Berlin) 156–167Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2143CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Olmsted SM. On representing and solving decision problems. (1983) . Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  • Ortiz LE, Kaelbling LP, Kautz H, Porter B. Sampling methods for action selection in influence diagrams. Proc. 17th National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (2000) (AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA) 378–385Google Scholar
  • Poland WB. Decision analysis with continuous and discrete variables: A mixture distribution approach. (1994) . Ph.D. thesis, Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  • Poland WB, Shachter RD, Heckerman D, Mamdani A. Mixtures of Gaussians and minimum relative entropy techniques for modeling continuous uncertainties. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: Proc. 9th Conf. (1993) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco) 183–190CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shachter RD, Kenley CR. Gaussian influence diagrams. Management Sci. (1989) 35(5):527–550LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP. Valuation-based systems for Bayesian decision analysis. Oper. Res. (1992) 40(3):463–484LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP. Two issues in using mixtures of polynomials for inference in hybrid Bayesian networks. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2012) . ePub ahead of print February 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2012.01.008CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP, Shafer G, Shachter RD, Levitt T, Lemmer JF, Kanal LN. Axioms for probability and belief-function propagation. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence 4 (1990) (North-Holland, Amsterdam) 169–198CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP, West JC. Extended Shenoy-Shafer architecture for inference in hybrid Bayesian networks with deterministic conditionals. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2011a) 52(6):805–818CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP, West JC. Inference in hybrid Bayesian networks using mixtures of polynomials. Internat. J. Approximate Reasoning (2011b) 52(5):641–657CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shenoy PP, Rumí R, Salmerón A. Some practical issues in inference in hybrid Bayesian networks with deterministic conditionals. IEEE Proc. 2011 Eleventh Internat. Conf. Intelligent Systems Design Appl. (ISDA-11) (2011) (IEEE Research Publishing Services, Piscataway, NJ) 605–610CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Smith JE. Moment methods for decision analysis. Management Sci. (1993) 39(3):340–358LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Tatman JA, Shachter RD. Dynamic programming and influence diagrams. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics (1990) 20(2):365–379CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Xu Y. Lagrange interpolation on Chebyshev points of two variables. J. Approximation Theory (1996) 87(2):220–238CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.