Annals of Combinatorics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 245–263 | Cite as

On the Fiber Bundle Structure of the Space of Belief Functions

Article

Abstract

The study of finite non-additive measures or “belief functions” has been recently posed in connection with combinatorics and convex geometry. As a matter of fact, as belief functions are completely specified by the associated belief values on the events of the frame on which they are defined, they can be represented as points of a Cartesian space. The space of all belief functions \({\mathcal{B}}\) or “belief space” is a simplex whose vertices are BF focused on single events. In this paper, we present an alternative description of the space of belief functions in terms of differential geometric notions. The belief space possesses indeed a recursive bundle structure inherently related to the mass assignment mechanism, in which basic probability is recursively assigned to events of increasing size. A formal proof of the decomposition of \({\mathcal{B}}\) together with a characterization of its bases and fibers as simplices are provided.

Mathematics Subject Classification

60A99 52B99 05A10 03E72 55R10 

Keywords

belief function belief space simplex sum functions smooth fiber bundle 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aigner, M.: Combinatorial Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York (1979)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Black, P.K.: Geometric structure of lower probabilities. In: Goutsias, J., Mahler, R.P.S., Nguyen, H.T. (eds.), Random Sets, pp. 361–383. Springer, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cuzzolin F.: Two new Bayesian approximations of belief functions based on convex geometry. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybern. B, Cybern. 37(4), 993–1008 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cuzzolin F.: A geometric approach to the theory of evidence. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. C, Appl. Rev. 38(4), 522–534 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cuzzolin F.: On the relative belief transform. Internat. J. Approx. Reason. 53(5), 786–804 (2012)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuzzolin F.: The geometry of consonant belief functions: Simplicial complexes of necessity measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161(10), 1459–1479 (2010)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuzzolin F.: Geometry of relative plausibility and relative belief of singletons. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 59(1), 47–79 (2010)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuzzolin F.: Geometry of Dempster’s rule of combination. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man Cybern. B, Cybern. 34(2), 961–977 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dempster A.P.: Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivariate mapping. Ann. Math. Stat. 38, 325–339 (1967)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubrovin, B.A., Novikov, S.P., Fomenko, A.T.: Sovremennaja Geometrija: Metody i Prilozenija. Nauka, Moscow (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y.: Uncertainty, belief, and probability. In: Proceeding of the 9th International Joint Conference in AI (IJCAI-89), pp. 1161–1167. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould, H.W.: Combinatorial Identities. Morgantown, W.Va. (1972)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ha, V., Haddawy, P.: Theoretical foundations for abstraction-based probabilistic planning. In: Horvitz, E., Jensen, F. (eds.) Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 291–298. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hestir, H.T., Nguyen, H.T., Rogers, G.S.: A random set formalism for evidential reasoning. In: Goodman, I.R. et al. (eds.) Conditional Logic in Expert Systems, pp. 309–344. North Holland, Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jøsang, A., Pope, S.: Normalising the consensus operator for belief fusion. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty (IPMU 2006). Paris (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miranda, P., Grabisch, M., Gil, P.: On some results of the set of dominating k-additive belief. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty (IPMU’04), pp. 625–632. Perugia (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen H.T.: On random sets and belief functions. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 65(3), 531–542 (1978)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruspini, E.H.: Epistemic logics, probability and the calculus of evidence. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-87), pp. 924–931. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smets P., Kennes R.: The transferable belief model. Artificial Intelligence 66(2), 191–234 (1994)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Basel 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computing and Communication TechnologiesOxford Brookes UniversityWheatleyUK

Personalised recommendations