Applying new uncertainty related theories and multicriteria decision analysis methods to snow avalanche risk management

International audienceMaking the best decision in the event of a snow avalanche encounters problems in the assessment and management process because of the lack of information and knowledge on natural phenomena and the heterogeneity and reliability of the information sources available (historical data, field measurements, and expert assessments). One major goal today is therefore to aid decision making by improving the quality, quantity, and reliability of the available information. This article presents a new method called evidential reasoning and multicriteria decision analysis (ER-MCDA) to help decision making by considering information imperfections arising from several more or less reliable and possibly conflicting sources of information. First, the principles of the existing methods are reviewed. Classical methods of multicriteria decision making and existing theories attempting to represent and propagate information imperfections are described. In a second point, we describe the principle of the ER-MCDA method combining multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to model the decision-making process and fuzzy sets theory, possibility theory, and evidence theory to represent, fuse and propagate information imperfections. Experts, considered more or less reliable, provide imprecise and uncertain evaluations of quantitative and qualitative criteria that are combined through information fusion. The method is applied to a simplified version of an existing system aiming to evaluate the sensitivity of avalanche sites. This new method makes it possible to consider both the importance of the information available and reliability in the decision process. It also contributes to improving traceability. Other developments designed to handle other assessment problems such as avalanche triggering conditions or data quality are in progress

Viewpoints on emergent semantics

Authors include:Philippe Cudr´e-Mauroux, and Karl Aberer (editors), Alia I. Abdelmoty, Tiziana Catarci, Ernesto Damiani, Arantxa Illaramendi, Robert Meersman, Erich J. Neuhold, Christine Parent, Kai-Uwe Sattler, Monica Scannapieco, Stefano Spaccapietra, Peter Spyns, and Guy De Tr´eWe introduce a novel view on how to deal with the problems of semantic interoperability in distributed systems. This view is based on the concept of emergent semantics, which sees both the representation of semantics and the discovery of the proper interpretation of symbols as the result of a self-organizing process performed by distributed agents exchanging symbols and having utilities dependent on the proper interpretation of the symbols. This is a complex systems perspective on the problem of dealing with semantics. We highlight some of the distinctive features of our vision and point out preliminary examples of its applicatio

Death of Paradox: The Killer Logic beneath the Standards of Proof

The prevailing but contested view of proof standards is that factfinders should determine facts by probabilistic reasoning. Given imperfect evidence, they should ask themselves what they think the chances are that the burdened party would be right if the truth were to become known; they then compare those chances to the applicable standard of proof. I contend that for understanding the standards of proof, the modern versions of logic — in particular, fuzzy logic and belief functions — work better than classical probability. This modern logic suggests that factfinders view evidence of an imprecisely perceived and described reality to form a fuzzy degree of belief in a fact’s existence; they then apply the standard of proof in accordance with the theory of belief functions, by comparing their belief in a fact’s existence to their belief in its negation. This understanding explains how the standard of proof actually works in the law world. It gives a superior mental image of the factfinders’ task, conforms more closely to what we know of people’s cognition, and captures better what the law says its standards are and how it manipulates them. One virtue of this conceptualization is that it is not a radically new view. Another virtue is that it nevertheless manages to resolve some stubborn problems of proof, including the infamous conjunction paradox