This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Using Mechanisms Built in a Design Class to Test Methods for Decision Under Uncertainty
Technical Paper
2006-01-0271
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
An approach for testing methods for decision-making under uncertainty using existing or easily obtainable databases has been proposed by the authors and their coworkers. The study presented in this paper follows the above approach to test methods for decision under uncertainty experimentally on a decision problem involving two decision makers, an inventor and a financier who want to develop and market a new device. Real-life data for simulating the outcomes of the project was collected using 133 slider-crank mechanisms that undergraduate students constructed. The mechanisms were constructed and measured to simulate the entire risky venture of developing and marketing a new product. The data obtained was used to simulate thousands of decisions of the inventor and the financier on a computer, using different methods for decision under uncertainty; standard probability, Imprecise probability and Bayesian probability. These methods were then judged on the basis of the expected utilities that they produced when used by the two decision makers and also on the sensitivities of these utilities to changes in the amount of available information or the risk attitudes of the decision makers. In general, the Imprecise probability method was found insensitive to changes in the problem parameters. The Bayesian probability method, although sensitive to prior models of uncertainty, produced the highest utilities in general and it was also found insensitive to the information level of a decision maker, when a good prior was chosen.
Authors
Topic
Citation
Pandey, V. and Nikolaidis, E., "Using Mechanisms Built in a Design Class to Test Methods for Decision Under Uncertainty," SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0271, 2006, https://doi.org/10.4271/2006-01-0271.Also In
Reliability and Robust Design in Automotive Engineering, 2006
Number: SP-2032; Published: 2006-04-03
Number: SP-2032; Published: 2006-04-03
References
- Baer, G. Gensler, G. The Great Mutual Fund Trap Broadway Books 2002 10 148 154
- de Finetti, B. 1972 Probability, Induction and Statistics Wiley London 1 and 2
- Ellsberg, D. 1961 “Risk Ambiguity and the Savage Axioms,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 75 643 669
- Gigerenzer, G. Todd, P. M. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart Oxford University Press New York 1999
- Greene, J. Smart, S. 1999 “Liquidity Provision and Noise Trading: Evidence from the ‘Investment Dartboard’ Column,” Journal of Finance 54
- Haftka, R. T. Rosca, R. Nikolaidis, E. 2005 “An Approach for Testing Methods for Modeling Uncertainty,” Journal of Mechanical Design , ASME
- Pandey, V. 2004 Experimental Testing of Methods for Decision under Uncertainty by Simulating Business and Engineering Decisions MS Thesis, Mechanical Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, The University of Toledo Toledo, Ohio
- Savage, L. J. 1954 The Foundations of Statistics New York Wiley
- Schmeiler, D. 1989 “Subjective Probability and Expected Utility Without Additivity,” Econometrica 57 8 571 587
- Stark, H. Woods, J. W. 1994 Probability, Random Processes and Estimation Theory for Engineers US Prentice-Hall
- von Neumann, J. Morgenstern, O. 1944 Theory of Games and Economic Behavior Princeton University Press
- Walley, P. 1991 Statistical Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities Chapman and Hall 632 638
- Winkler, R. L. 1966 “Probabilistic Prediction: Some Experimental Results,” Journal of American Statistical Association 675 685