Handling of dependence in Dempster-Shafer theory

International Journal of Intelligent Systems

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 441-467

  Su, Xiaoyan ^a,b   Mahadevan, Sankaran ^c   Xu, Peida ^a   Deng, Yong ^d  

^a SHANGHAI JIAO TONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SHANGHAI UNIVERSITY OF ELECTRIC POWER   (China)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

ANALYTIC NETWORK PROCESS; DEMPSTER'S RULE; DEMPSTER'S RULE OF COMBINATION; DEMPSTER-SHAFER THEORY; EVIDENCE THEORIES; INFORMATION SOURCES; TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS;

PROJECT MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84921722692     PISSN: 08848173     EISSN: 1098111X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/int.21695     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Dempster AP. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Statist 1967;38(2):325-339.
2. Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1976.
3. Wang Y, Yang J, Xu D, Chin K. On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures. Inf Sci 2007;177(5):1230-1247.
4. Yang J, Huang H, He L, Zhu S, Wen D. Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory under uncertainty. Eng Fail Anal 2011;18:2084-2092.
5. Yager RR, Alajlan N. Decision making with ordinal payoffs under dempster-shafer type uncertainty. Int J Intell Syst 2013;28(11):1039-1053.
6. Yager RR. A knowledge-based approach to adversarial decision making. Int J Intell Syst 2008;23(1):1-21.
7. Yang J, Xu D. Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 2002;32(3):376-393.
8. Yang J, Wang Y, Xu D, Chin K. The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. Eur J Oper Res 2006;171(1):309-343.
9. Ma W, Xiong W, Luo X. A model for decision making with missing, imprecise, and uncertain evaluations of multiple criteria. Int J Intell Syst 2013;28(2):152-184.
10. Yao S, Huang W-Q. Induced ordered weighted evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis with uncertainty. Int J Intell Syst 2014;29(10):906-925.
11. Huang S, Su X, Hu Y, Mahadevan S, Deng Y. A new decision-making method by incomplete preferences based on evidence distance. Knowl-Based Syst 2014;56:264-272.
12. Denoeux T. A neural network classifier based on dempster-shafer theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Humans 2000;30(2):131-150.
13. Kang B, Deng Y, Sadiq R, Mahadevan S. Evidential cognitive maps. Knowl-Based Syst 2012;35:77-86.
14. Wei D, Deng X, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S. Identifying influential nodes in weighted networks based on evidence theory. Phys. A 2013;392:2564-2575.
15. Yager RR. Set measure directed multi-source information fusion. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2011;19(6):1031-1039.
16. Voorbraak F. On the justification of dempster's rule of combination. Artif Intell 1991;48(2):171-197.
17. Walley P. Measures of uncertainty in expert systems. Artif Intell 1996;83(1):1-58.
18. Altinc¸ay H. On the independence requirement in Dempster-Shafer theory for combining classifiers providing statistical evidence. Appl Intell 2006;25(1):73-90.
19. Denoeux T. Conjunctive and disjunctive combination of belief functions induced by nondistinct bodies of evidence. Artifi Intell 2008;172(2):234-264.
20. Cattaneo ME. Combining belief functions issued from dependent sources. In: Seminar für Statistik, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zürich; 2003.
21. Destercke S, Dubois D, Chojnacki E. Cautious conjunctive merging of belief functions. In: Khaled Mollouli, editor. Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty. Hammamet, Tunisia: Springer; 2007. pp 332-343.
22. Destercke S, Dubois D. Idempotent conjunctive combination of belief functions: extending the minimum rule of possibility theory. Inf Sci 2011;181(18):3925-3945.
23. Cattaneo ME. Belief functions combination without the assumption of independence of the information sources. Int J Approx Reason 2011;52(3):299-315.
24. Basir O, Karray F, Zhu H. Connectionist-based dempster-shafer evidential reasoning for data fusion. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2005;16(6):1513-1530.
25. Quost B, Masson M-H, Denoeux T. Classifier fusion in the Dempster-Shafer framework using optimized t-norm based combination rules. Int J Approx Reason 2011;52(3):353-374.
26. Monney PA, Chan M. Modelling dependence in Dempster-Shafer theory. Int J Uncertain Fuzz 2007;15(1):93-114.
27. Guralnik V, Mylaraswamy D, Voges H. On handling dependent evidence and multiple faults in knowledge fusion for engine health management. In: IEEE Aerospace Conf, Big Sky, MT; 2006. pp 9-17.
28. Yager RR. On the fusion of non-independent belief structures. Int J Gen Syst 2009;38(5):505-531.
29. Jharkharia S, Shankar R. Selection of logistics service provider: an analytic network process (ANP) approach. Omega 2007;35(3):274-289.
30. Zadeh LA. A simple view of the dempster-shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination. AI Mag. 1986;7(2):85-90.
31. Elouedi Z, Mellouli K, Smets P. Assessing sensor reliability for multisensor data fusion within the transferable belief model. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B 2004;34(1):782-787.
32. Smets P, Kennes R. The transferable belief model. Artif Intell 1994;66(3):191-243.
33. Saaty TL. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS; 1996.
34. Saaty TL-. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
35. Meade L, Sarkis J. Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile manufacturing processes: an analytical network approach. Int J Prod Res 1999;37(2):241-261.
36. Cheng EW, Li H. Application of ANP in process models: an example of strategic partnering. Build Environ 2007;42(1):278-287.
37. Tohumcu Z, Karasakal E. R&D project performance evaluation with multiple and interdependent criteria. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2010;57(4):620-633.
38. Su X, Mahadevan S, Xu P, Deng Y. Inclusion of task dependence in human reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014;128:41-45.
39. Sun H, Tian P. Analytic network process (ANP) and scientific decision in decision science theory and method. Beijing: Ocean Press; 2001.
40. Wang R, Huang J, Zhang Q. Attacking decision of underwater multiple targets by using analytic network process (ANP). In: Chinese Control and Decision Conf (CCDC), China; 2008. pp 1987-1990.
41. Wei J-Y, Bi R. Knowledge management performance evaluation based on ANP. Int Conf Mach Learn Cybernet, 2008;1:257-261.
42. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: applications to decisions under risk. Eur J Pure Appl Math 2007;1(1):122-196.
43. Denoeux T. Constructing belief functions from sample data using multinomial confidence regions. Int J Approx Reason 2006;42(3):228-252.
44. Xu P, Deng Y, Su X, Mahadevan S. A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data. Knowl-Based Syst 2013;46:69-80.
45. Germain M, Boucher J, Benie G. A new mass functions assignment in the Dempster-Shafer theory: the fuzzy statistical approach. In: IEEE Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conf Proc (IMTC), Victoria, BC; 2008. pp 825-829.
46. Shang JS, Tjader Y, Ding Y. A unified framework for multicriteria evaluation of transportation projects. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 2004;51(3):300-313.
47. Tayyebia A, Delavara M, Tayyebia A, Golobi M. Combining multi criteria decision making and Dempster-Shafer theory for landfill site selection. Int Arch Photogram Rem Sens Spatial Inf Sci 2010;38(8):1073-1078.
48. Aczel J, Saaty TL. Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 1983;27(1):93-102.