On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules
Information Sciences: an International Journal
The Combination of Evidence in the Transferable Belief Model
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
On the justification of Dempster's rule of combination
Artificial Intelligence
Two views of belief: belief as generalized probability and belief as evidence
Artificial Intelligence
Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence
Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence
Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts
Decision Support Systems
The consensus operator for combining beliefs
Artificial Intelligence
Fusion rules for merging uncertain information
Information Fusion
Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning
Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions
Information Fusion
The combination of multiple classifiers using an evidential reasoning approach
Artificial Intelligence
Conflict Analysis and Merging Operators Selection in Possibility Theory
ECSQARU '07 Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty
Journal of Systems and Software
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
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.