Expected Utility Theory for Monitoring-Based Decision-Making

Cappello, Carlo; Zonta, Daniele; Glišić, Branko

doi:10.1109/jproc.2015.2511540

Cited by 31 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Decision support systems (DSS) have been used extensively in the analysis of economic, technical, environmental, optimization, and other problems that involve a choice of alternatives [198]. This type of tool is an important component in monitoring and control systems.…”

Section: The Decision Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage Identification in Structural Health Monitoring: A Brief Review from its Implementation to the Use of Data-Driven Applications

Burgos

Vargas

Pedraza

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The damage identification process provides relevant information about the current state of a structure under inspection, and it can be approached from two different points of view. The first approach uses data-driven algorithms, which are usually associated with the collection of data using sensors. Data are subsequently processed and analyzed. The second approach uses models to analyze information about the structure. In the latter case, the overall performance of the approach is associated with the accuracy of the model and the information that is used to define it. Although both approaches are widely used, data-driven algorithms are preferred in most cases because they afford the ability to analyze data acquired from sensors and to provide a real-time solution for decision making; however, these approaches involve high-performance processors due to the high computational cost. As a contribution to the researchers working with data-driven algorithms and applications, this work presents a brief review of data-driven algorithms for damage identification in structural health-monitoring applications. This review covers damage detection, localization, classification, extension, and prognosis, as well as the development of smart structures. The literature is systematically reviewed according to the natural steps of a structural health-monitoring system. This review also includes information on the types of sensors used as well as on the development of data-driven algorithms for damage identification.

show abstract

Section: The Decision Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Damage Identification in Structural Health Monitoring: A Brief Review from its Implementation to the Use of Data-Driven Applications

Burgos

Vargas

Pedraza

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this section, we review the concepts of Bayesian judgment, expected utility and value of information, as applied to SHM problems, following a similar path as in Cappello et al [17] and Zonta et al [2]. The Reader can find further examples of SHM-based decision problems in Flynn and Todd [18] [19], Flynn et al [20] and Tonelli et al [21].…”

Section: Shm-based Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We denote this quantity preposterior utility, u*, to separate it both from the prior and posterior utilities introduced above. The preposterior utility u* is independent on the particular realization and can be derived from the posterior expected utility u(y) by marginalizing out the variable y, [2] [17]:…”

Section: Shm-based Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To illustrate how the presence of two different decision makers in the decision chain affect the way how the VoI is evaluated, we consider the case of Malcolm, the fictitious manager of an imaginary Office of Design and Construction at Princeton University, protagonist in [2] and [17]. Malcolm is responsible for the Streicker Bridge, a pedestrian bridge located on Princeton University campus.…”

Section: Value Of Information Of the Monitoring Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

IWSHM 2017: Quantifying the benefit of structural health monitoring: what if the manager is not the owner?

Bolognani

Verzobio

Tonelli

et al. 2018

Structural Health Monitoring

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only very recently our community has acknowledged that the benefit of Structural Health Monitoring (SHM) can be properly quantified using the concept of Value of Information (VoI). The VoI is the difference between the utilities of operating the structure with and without the monitoring system. Typically, it is assumed that there is one decision maker for all decisions, i.e. deciding on both the investment on the monitoring system as well as the operation of the structure. The aim of this work is to formalize a rational method for quantifying the Value of Information when two different actors are involved in the decision chain: the manager, who makes decisions regarding the structure, based on monitoring data; and the owner, who chooses whether to install the monitoring system or not, before having access to these data. The two decision makers, even if both rational and exposed to the same background information, may still act differently because of their different appetites for risk. To illustrate how this framework works, we evaluate a hypothetical VoI for the Streicker Bridge, a pedestrian bridge in Princeton University campus equipped with a fiber optic sensing system, assuming that two fictional characters, Malcolm and Ophelia, are involved: Malcolm is the manager who decides whether to keep the bridge open or close it following to an incident; Ophelia is the owner who decides whether to invest on a monitoring system to help Malcolm making the right decision. We demonstrate that when manager and owner are two different individual, the benefit of monitoring could be greater or smaller than when all the decisions are made by the same individual. Under appropriate conditions, the monitoring VoI could even be negative, meaning that the owner is willing to pay to prevent the manager to use the monitoring system.

show abstract

“…the manager, making decisions that are less preferred by the owner than with no information. To illustrate how the presence of two different decision makers in the decision chain affect the way how the VoI is evaluated, we consider the case of Malcolm, the fictitious manager of an imaginary Office of Design and Construction at Princeton University, protagonist in [2] and [17]. Malcolm is responsible for the Streicker Bridge, a pedestrian bridge located on Princeton University campus.…”

Section: Two Individuals Two Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%