×

Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. (English) Zbl 1131.68539

Summary: The study of alternative combination rules in DS theory when evidence is in conflict has emerged again recently as an interesting topic, especially in data/information fusion applications. These studies have mainly focused on investigating which alternative would be appropriate for which conflicting situation, under the assumption that a conflict is identified. The issue of detection (or identification) of conflict among evidence has been ignored. In this paper, we formally define when two basic belief assignments are in conflict. This definition deploys quantitative measures of both the mass of the combined belief assigned to the emptyset before normalization and the distance between betting commitments of beliefs. We argue that only when both measures are high, it is safe to say the evidence is in conflict. This definition can be served as a prerequisite for selecting appropriate combination rules.

MSC:

68T30 Knowledge representation
68T37 Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI Link

References:

[1] Ayoun, A.; Smets, Ph., Data association in multi-target detection using the transferable belief model, International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 16, 10, 1167-1182 (2001) · Zbl 0988.68170
[2] Dubois, D.; Prade, H., On several representations of an uncertain body of evidence, (Gupta, M.; Sanchez, E., Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes (1982), North-Holland: North-Holland Amsterdam), 167-181
[3] Dubois, D.; Prade, H., A note on measures of specificity for fuzzy sets, International Journal of General Systems, 10, 4, 279-283 (1985) · Zbl 0569.94032
[4] Dubois, D.; Prade, H., Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures, Computational Intelligence, 4, 244-264 (1988)
[5] George, T.; Pal, N., Quantification of conflict in Dempster-Shafer framework: a new approach, International Journal of General Systems, 24, 4, 407-423 (1996) · Zbl 0856.90153
[6] Halpern, J.; Fagin, R., Two views of belief: belief as generalized probability and belief as evidence, Artificial Intelligence, 54, 275-317 (1992) · Zbl 0762.68055
[7] Harmance, D.; Klir, G.; Wang, Z., Modal logic interpretation of Dempster-Shafer theory: An infinite case, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 14, 81-93 (1996) · Zbl 0935.03035
[8] U. Hohle, Entropy with respect to plausibility measures, in: Proc. of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logics, 1982, pp. 167-169; U. Hohle, Entropy with respect to plausibility measures, in: Proc. of the 12th IEEE International Symposium on Multiple-Valued Logics, 1982, pp. 167-169 · Zbl 0549.94015
[9] Hunter, A.; Liu, W., Fusion rules for merging uncertain information, Information Fusion, 7, 1, 97-134 (2006)
[10] Josang, A., The consensus operator for combining beliefs, Artificial Intelligence, 141, 1-2, 157-170 (2002) · Zbl 1043.68093
[11] Jousselme, A. L.; Grenier, D.; Bosse, E., A new distance between two bodies of evidence, Information Fusion, 2, 91-101 (2001)
[12] Klir, G.; Ramer, A., Uncertainty in the Dempster-Shafer theory: A critical re-examination, International Journal of General Systems, 18, 2, 155-166 (1990) · Zbl 0732.60004
[13] Lefevre, E.; Colot, O.; Vannoorenberghe, P., Belief function combination and conflict management, Information Fusion, 3, 149-162 (2002)
[14] Murphy, C., Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts, Decision Support Systems, 29, 1-9 (2000)
[15] E. Ruspini, The logical foundations of evidential reasoning, Technical Note 408, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1986; E. Ruspini, The logical foundations of evidential reasoning, Technical Note 408, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, 1986
[16] Smets, Ph.; Kennes, K., The transferable belief model, Artificial Intelligence, 66, 2, 191-234 (1994) · Zbl 0807.68087
[17] Smets, Ph., Information content of an evidence, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 19, 1, 33-43 (1983)
[18] Ph. Smets, Belief functions, in: Ph. Smets, A. Mamdani, D. Dubois, H. Prade (Eds.), Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, 1988, pp. 253-286; Ph. Smets, Belief functions, in: Ph. Smets, A. Mamdani, D. Dubois, H. Prade (Eds.), Non-Standard Logics for Automated Reasoning, 1988, pp. 253-286
[19] Smets, Ph., The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12, 5, 447-458 (1990)
[20] Smets, Ph., Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 38, 133-147 (2004) · Zbl 1065.68098
[21] Ph. Smets, Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions, Technical Report, IRIDIA, Universite Libra de Bruxelles, 2004; Ph. Smets, Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions, Technical Report, IRIDIA, Universite Libra de Bruxelles, 2004
[22] Shafer, G., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence (1976), Princeton University Press: Princeton University Press Princeton, NJ · Zbl 0359.62002
[23] Tsiporkova, E.; Boeva, V.; De Baets, B., Dempster-Shafer theory framed in modal logic, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 2, 157-175 (1999) · Zbl 0992.03022
[24] Tessem, B., Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence, Artificial Intelligence, 61, 315-329 (1993)
[25] Yager, R. R., Entropy and specificity in a mathematical theory of evidence, International Journal of General Systems, 9, 4, 249-260 (1983) · Zbl 0521.94008
[26] Yager, R. R., On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules, Information Sciences, 41, 93-138 (1987) · Zbl 0629.68092
[27] Voorbraak, F., On the justification of Dempster’s rule of combinations, Artificial Intelligence, 48, 171-197 (1991) · Zbl 1117.68496
[28] Zadeh, L., A mathematical theory of evidence (book review), AI Magazine, 5, 3, 81-83 (1984)
[29] Zadeh, L., A simple view of the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination, AI Magazine, 7, 85-90 (1986)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.