Consulting an Expert with Potentially Conflicting Preferences.

In this paper, two modes of non-binding communication between an expert and a decision- maker are compared. They are distinguished mainly by the nature of the information transmitted by the expert. In the first one, the expert reports only his opinion (soft information) concerning the desirability of a certain action, whereas in the second one, he is consulted to provide evidence (hard information) to convince the decision-maker. The expert's ability to provide evidence increases with the precision of his information. The paper shows that requiring evidence is always beneficial to the decision-maker whereas it is bene�cial to the expert if and only if the preferences of both agents are different enough.

Consulting an Expert with Potentially Conflicting Preferences

In this paper, two modes of non-binding communication between an expert and a decision- maker are compared. They are distinguished mainly by the nature of the information transmitted by the expert. In the first one, the expert reports only his opinion (soft information) concerning the desirability of a certain action, whereas in the second one, he is consulted to provide evidence (hard information) to convince the decision-maker. The expert's ability to provide evidence increases with the precision of his information. The paper shows that requiring evidence is always beneficial to the decision-maker whereas it is bene�cial to the expert if and only if the preferences of both agents are different enough

How to consult an expert? Opinion vs Evidence

International audienc

Incertitude scientifique et décision publique: le recours au Principe de Précaution

International audienceIn this paper, we formalize two criteria of decisions which try to convey two different interpretations of the Precautionary principle. The first criterion corresponds to the maximization of the minimum of the expected utility whereas the second criterion corresponds to the minimization of the maximum of the regret expectation. We apply those two criteria in an economic problem where uncertainty is assessed by a family of probabilities. We show that there is a distance of probabilities for which the choices induced by the two criteria are different. Especially, we show that in this case, the second criterion always induces the more cautious decision contrary to the first criterion, decisions are the same elsewhere.Dans cet article, nous formalisons deux critères de décisions qui tentent de rendre compte de deux logiques différentes d'interprétation du Principe de précaution. Le premier critère correspond à la maximisation du minimum de l'espérance d'utilité alors que le second critère correspond à la minimisation du maximum de l'espérance de regret. Les deux critères de décisions sont appliqués à un problème économique où l'incertitude est mesurée par une famille de probabilités. Nous montrons qu'il existe un intervalle de probabilités sur lequel les choix relatifs aux deux critères divergent. Plus particulièrement, nous montrons que sur cet intervalle, le second critère à la différence du premier, conduit toujours à retenir la décision la plus précautionneuse, les décisions étant identiques sur les autres intervalles

Incertitude scientifique et décision publique: le recours au Principe de Précaution

Dans cet article, nous formalisons deux critères de décisions qui tentent de rendre compte de deux logiques différentes d'interprétation du Principe de précaution. Le premier critère correspond à la maximisation du minimum de l'espérance d'utilité alors que le second critère correspond à la minimisation du maximum de l'espérance de regret. Les deux critères de décisions sont appliqués à un problème économique où l'incertitude est mesurée par une famille de probabilités. Nous montrons qu'il existe un intervalle de probabilités sur lequel les choix relatifs aux deux critères divergent. Plus particulièrement, nous montrons que sur cet intervalle, le second critère à la différence du premier, conduit toujours à retenir la décision la plus précautionneuse, les décisions étant identiques sur les autres intervalles.décision publique, information, précaution

Automated Target Planning for FUSE Using the SOVA Algorithm

The SOVA algorithm was originally developed under the Resilient Systems and Operations Project of the Engineering for Complex Systems Program from NASA s Aerospace Technology Enterprise as a conceptual framework to support real-time autonomous system mission and contingency management. The algorithm and its software implementation were formulated for generic application to autonomous flight vehicle systems, and its efficacy was demonstrated by simulation within the problem domain of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle autonomous flight management. The approach itself is based upon the precept that autonomous decision making for a very complex system can be made tractable by distillation of the system state to a manageable set of strategic objectives (e.g. maintain power margin, maintain mission timeline, and et cetera), which if attended to, will result in a favorable outcome. From any given starting point, the attainability of the end-states resulting from a set of candidate decisions is assessed by propagating a system model forward in time while qualitatively mapping simulated states into margins on strategic objectives using fuzzy inference systems. The expected return value of each candidate decision is evaluated as the product of the assigned value of the end-state with the assessed attainability of the end-state. The candidate decision yielding the highest expected return value is selected for implementation; thus, the approach provides a software framework for intelligent autonomous risk management. The name adopted for the technique incorporates its essential elements: Strategic Objective Valuation and Attainability (SOVA). Maximum value of the approach is realized for systems where human intervention is unavailable in the timeframe within which critical control decisions must be made. The Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite, launched in 1999, has been collecting science data for eight years.[1] At its beginning of life, FUSE had six gyros in two IRUs and four reaction wheels. Over time through various failures, the satellite has been left with one reaction wheel on the vehicle skew axis and two gyros. To remain operational, a control scheme has been implemented using the magnetic torque rods and the remaining momentum wheel.[2] As a consequence, there are attitude regions where there is insufficient torque authority to overcome environmental disturbances (e.g. gravity gradient torques). The situation is further complicated by the fact that these attitude regions shift inertially with time as the spacecraft moves through earth s magnetic field during the course of its orbit. Under these conditions, the burden of planning targets and target-to-target slew maneuvers has increased significantly since the beginning of the mission.[3] Individual targets must be selected so that the magnetic field remains roughly aligned with the skew wheel axis to provide enough control authority to the other two orthogonal axes. If the field moves too far away from the skew axis, the lack of control authority allows environmental torques to pull the satellite away from the target and can potentially cause it to tumble. Slew maneuver planning must factor the stability of targets at the beginning and end, and the torque authority at all points along the slew. Due to the time varying magnetic field geometry relative to any two inertial targets, small modifications in slew maneuver timing can make large differences in the achievability of a maneuver

Incertitude scientifique et décision publique : le recours au Principe de précaution

Dans cet article, nous formalisons deux critères de décisions qui tentent de rendre compte de deux logiques différentes d'interprétation du Principe de précaution. Le premier critère correspond à la maximisation du minimum de l'espérance d'utilité alors que le second critère correspond à la minimisation du maximum de l'espérance de regret. Les deux critères de décisions sont appliqués à un problème économique où l'incertitude est mesurée par une famille de probabilités. Nous montrons qu'il existe un intervalle de probabilités sur lequel les choix relatifs aux deux critères divergent. Plus particulièrement, nous montrons que sur cet intervalle, le second critère à la différence du premier, conduit toujours à retenir la décision la plus précautionneuse, les décisions étant identiques sur les autres intervalles.Décision publique, information, précaution

Planning the FUSE Mission Using the SOVA Algorithm

Three documents discuss the Sustainable Objective Valuation and Attainability (SOVA) algorithm and software as used to plan tasks (principally, scientific observations and associated maneuvers) for the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite. SOVA is a means of managing risk in a complex system, based on a concept of computing the expected return value of a candidate ordered set of tasks as a product of pre-assigned task values and assessments of attainability made against qualitatively defined strategic objectives. For the FUSE mission, SOVA autonomously assembles a week-long schedule of target observations and associated maneuvers so as to maximize the expected scientific return value while keeping the satellite stable, managing the angular momentum of spacecraft attitude- control reaction wheels, and striving for other strategic objectives. A six-degree-of-freedom model of the spacecraft is used in simulating the tasks, and the attainability of a task is calculated at each step by use of strategic objectives as defined by use of fuzzy inference systems. SOVA utilizes a variant of a graph-search algorithm known as the A* search algorithm to assemble the tasks into a week-long target schedule, using the expected scientific return value to guide the search

Performance of the X-Calibur Hard X-Ray Polarimetry Mission during its 2018/19 Long-Duration Balloon Flight

X-Calibur is a balloon-borne telescope that measures the polarization of high-energy X-rays in the 15--50keV energy range. The instrument makes use of the fact that X-rays scatter preferentially perpendicular to the polarization direction. A beryllium scattering element surrounded by pixellated CZT detectors is located at the focal point of the InFOC{\mu}S hard X-ray mirror. The instrument was launched for a long-duration balloon (LDB) flight from McMurdo (Antarctica) on December 29, 2018, and obtained the first constraints of the hard X-ray polarization of an accretion-powered pulsar. Here, we describe the characterization and calibration of the instrument on the ground and its performance during the flight, as well as simulations of particle backgrounds and a comparison to measured rates. The pointing system and polarimeter achieved the excellent projected performance. The energy detection threshold for the anticoincidence system was found to be higher than expected and it exhibited unanticipated dead time. Both issues will be remedied for future flights. Overall, the mission performance was nominal, and results will inform the design of the follow-up mission XL-Calibur, which is scheduled to be launched in summer 2022.Comment: 19 pages, 31 figures, submitted to Astropart. Phy