scholarly journals Where Is the Clean Air? A Bayesian Decision Framework for Personalised Cyclist Route Selection Using R-INLA

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura C. Dawkins ◽  
Daniel B. Williamson ◽  
Kerrie L. Mengersen ◽  
Lidia Morawska ◽  
Rohan Jayaratne ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 105 ◽  
pp. 102163
Author(s):  
Ahmad Rabanimotlagh ◽  
Prabhu Janakaraj ◽  
Pu Wang

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Dayan

Abstract Bayesian decision theory provides a simple formal elucidation of some of the ways that representation and representational abstraction are involved with, and exploit, both prediction and its rather distant cousin, predictive coding. Both model-free and model-based methods are involved.


Author(s):  
Hongrong Shi ◽  
Jinqiang Zhang ◽  
Bin Zhao ◽  
Xiangao Xia ◽  
Bo Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

1991 ◽  
Vol 30 (03) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. J. Moens ◽  
J. K. van der Korst

AbstractA Bayesian decision support system was developed for the diagnosis of rheumatic disorders. Knowledge in this system is represented as evidential weights of findings. Simple weights were calculated as the logarithm of likelihood ratios on the basis of 1,000 consecutive patients from a rheumatological clinic. The effect of various methods to improve performance of the system by modification of the weights was studied. Three methods had a mathematical basis; a fourth consisted of weights adapted by a human expert, which allowed inclusion of diagnostic rules such as defined in widely accepted criteria sets. The system’s performance was measured in a test population of 570 different cases from the same clinic and compared with predictions of diagnostic outcome made by rheumatologists. The weights from a human expert gave optimal results (sensitivity 65% and specificity 96%), that were close to the physicians’ predictions (sensitivity 64% and specificity 98%). The methods to measure the performance of the various models used in this study emphasize sensitivity, specificity and the use of receiver operating characteristics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document