Advertisement

Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL method

  • Weiquan Zhang
  • Yong DengEmail author
Methodologies and Application

Abstract

Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is widely used in the information fusion field for its effectivity in representing and handling uncertain information. However, applications of Dempster rule in combining multiple conflicting evidence often cause counterintuitive results. One of the existing researches on conflict is based on the similarity of evidence. However, due to the fact that computational complexity of the existing methods is large, it is difficult to meet the real-time requirements of systems. Therefore, new effective methods with acceptable expense should be explored. In this article, following the idea of modifying the source model of evidence, a new method based on DEMATEL is proposed to take the weight of each evidence into consideration. First, the total-relation matrix is determined by the similarity among evidence. Second, prominence and importance are calculated. Finally, the weighted average combination result can be obtained based on Dempster’s rule of combination. Numerical examples are used to demonstrate that the proposed model is efficient to both deals with conflicting evidence and reduce computational complexity.

Keywords

Dempster–Shafer evidence theory Conflict management DEMATEL Belief function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61573290, 61503237). The authors greatly appreciate the reviews’ suggestions and the editor’s encouragement.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that can inappropriately influence our work, there is no professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of, the manuscript entitled.

References

  1. Altınçay H (2006) On the independence requirement in dempster-shafer theory for combining classifiers providing statistical evidence. Appl Intell 25(1):73–90CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Basseville M (1989) Distance measures for signal processing and pattern recognition. Eur J Signal Process 18(4):349–369MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beynon M, Curry B, Morgan P (2000) The dempstershafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modeling. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):37–50Google Scholar
  4. Bian T, Deng Y (2018) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks: A node information dimension approach. Chaos Interdiscip J Nonlinear Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5030894
  5. Bian T, Zheng H, Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Failure mode and effects analysis based on Dnumbers and topsis. Qual Reliab Eng Int.  https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.2268 Google Scholar
  6. Cha SH (2007) Comprehensive survey on distance/similaritymeasures between probability density functions. Int J Math Models Methods Appl Sci 1(4):300–307MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Deng X (2018) A modified method for evaluating sustainable transport solutions based on ahp and dempstershafer evidence theory. Appl Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3390/app8040563 Google Scholar
  8. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivariate mapping. Ann Math Stat 38:325–339CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng W, Lu X, Deng Y (2018) Evidential model validation under epistemic uncertainty. Math Prob Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6789635 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng X, Deng Y (2018) D-AHP method with different credibility of information. Soft Comput.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00,500-017-2993-9 Google Scholar
  11. Deng X, Jiang W (2018) Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis using an evidential network approach extended by belief rules and uncertainty measures. Ann Nucl Energy 117:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deng X, Jiang W (2018) An evidential axiomatic design approach for decision making using the evaluation of belief structure satisfaction to uncertain target values. Int J Intell Syst 33(1):15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deng Y, Shi WK, Zhu ZZ, Liu Q (2004) Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence. Decis Support Syst 38(3):489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dong Y, Wang J, Chen F, Hu Y, Deng Y (2017) Location of facility based on simulated annealing and “ZKW” algorithms. Math Prob Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4628501
  15. Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures. Comput Intell 4(3):244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Florea M, Jousselme A, Bosse E (2009) Robust combination rules for evidence theory. Inf Fusion 10(2):183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fontela E, Gabus A (1976) The DEMATEL Observer. Battelle Geneva Research Center, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. Frikha A, Moalla H (2014) Analytic hierarchy process for multi-sensor data fusion based on belief function theory. Eur J Oper Res 241(1):133–147MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Gabus A, Fontela E (1972) World Problems, an Invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Center, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. Haenni A (2002) Are alternatives to dempster’s rule of combination real alternatives: Comments on about the belief function combination and the conflict management problem-lefevre, et al. Inf Fusion 3(3):237–239Google Scholar
  21. Haenni R (2005) Shedding new light on zadeh’s criticism of dempster’s rule of combination. In: 2005 7th international conference on information fusion, vol 2. IEEE, pp 6Google Scholar
  22. Jiang W, Wang S (2017) An uncertainty measure for interval-valued evidences. Int J Comput Commun Control 12(5):631–644MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jiang W, Wang S, Liu X, Zheng H, Wei B (2017) Evidence conflict measure based on OWA operator in open world. PloS ONE 12(5):e0177,828Google Scholar
  24. Jiang W, Wei B (2018) Intuitionistic fuzzy evidential power aggregation operator and its application in multiple criteria decision-making. Int J Syst Sci 49(3):582–594MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Jiang W, Wei B, Liu X, Li X, Zheng H (2018) Intuitionistic fuzzy power aggregation operator based on entropy and its application in decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33(1):49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jiang W, Wei B, Qin X, Zhan J, Tang Y (2016) Sensor data fusion based on a new conflict measure. Math Prob Eng 2016:11MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Jousselme AL, Grenier D, Bosse E (2001) A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf Fusion 2(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kang B, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018) Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of Z-number in the evolutionary games. Appl Math Comput 324:202–217MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Kang B, Deng Y (2018) Generating Z-number based on OWA weights usingmaximum entropy. Int J Intell Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21995 Google Scholar
  30. Lefèvre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P (2002) Belief function combination and conflict management. Inf Fusion 3(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lefèvre E, Elouedi Z (2013) How to preserve the conflict as an alarm in the combination of belief functions? Decis Support Syst 56:326–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li M, Zhang Q, Deng Y (2018) Evidential identification of influential nodes in network of networks. Chaos Solitons Fractals.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2018.04.033 Google Scholar
  33. Li X, Jusup M, Wang Z, Li H, Shi L, Podobnik B, Stanley HE, Havlin S, Boccaletti S (2017) Punishment diminishes the benefits of network reciprocity in social dilemma experiments. Proc Natl Acad Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1707505,115 Google Scholar
  34. Li Y, Hu Y, Zhang X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) An evidential dematel method to identify critical success factors inemergency management. Appl Soft Comput J 22:504–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lin Y, Wang C, Ma C, Dou Z, Ma X (2016) A new combination method for multisensor conflict information. J Supercomput 72(7):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liou J (2015) Building an effective system for carbon reduction management. J Clean Prod 103:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu T, Deng Y, Chan F (2017) Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory. Int J Fuzzy Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40,815-017-0400-4 Google Scholar
  38. Liu W (2006) Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif Intell 170(11):909–924MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Lo CC, Chen WJ (2012) A hybrid information security risk assessment procedure considering interdependences between controls. Expert Syst Appl 39(1):247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ma J, Liu W, Miller P, Zhou H (2016) An evidential fusion approach for gender profiling. Inf Sci 333:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mo H, Deng Y (2016) A new aggregating operator in linguistic decision making based on D numbers. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Know Based Syst 24(6):831–846CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Mönks U, Dörksen H, Lohweg V, Hübner M (2016) Information fusion of conflicting input data. Sensors 16(11):1798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murphy C (2000) Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts. Decis Support Syst 29(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Perez A, Tabia H, Declercq D, Zanotti A (2016) Using the conflict in dempstershafer evidence theory as a rejection criterion in classifier output combination for 3d human action recognition. Image Vis Comput 55:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence, vol 1. Princeton University Press, PrincetonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. Smets P, Kennes R (1994) The transferable belief model. Artif Intell 66(2):191–234MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Tseng ML (2009) A causal and effect decision making model of service quality expectation using grey-fuzzy dematel approach. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):7738–7748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tzeng GH, Chiang CH, Li CW (2007) Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid mcdm model based on factor analysis and dematel. Expert Syst Appl 32(4):1028–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu HH, Chen HK, Shieh JI (2010) Evaluating performance criteria of employment service outreach program personnel by dematel method. Expert Syst Appl 37(7):5219–5223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xiao F (2018) A hybrid fuzzy soft sets decision making method in medical diagnosis. IEEE Access.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2820099 Google Scholar
  51. Xiao F (2018) An improved method for combining conflicting evidences based on the similarity measure and belief function entropy. Int J Fuzzy Syst 20(4):1256–1266MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Xiao F (2018) A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers. Eng Appl Artif Intell 71(2018):216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xiao F, Zhan C, Lai H, Tao L, Qu Z (2017) New parallel processing strategies in complex event processing systems with data streams. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 13(8):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Xu H, Deng Y (2018) Dependent evidence combination based on shearman coefficient and pearson coefficient. IEEE Access 6(1):11634–11640MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yager RR (1987) On the dempster-shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41(2):93–137MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. Yaowen FU, Wei Y (2014) Combination rule based on proportional redistribution of generalized conflict for evidence theory. Chin J Electron 23(3):533–538Google Scholar
  57. Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Toward uncertainty of weighted networks: An entropy-based model. Phys A Stat Mech Appl.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.05.067 Google Scholar
  58. Yu Y, Xiao G, Zhou J, Wang Y, Wang Z, Kurths J, Schellnhuber HJ (2016) System crash as dynamics of complex networks. Proc Nat Acad Sci 113(42):11726–11731MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. Zadeh L (1986) A simple view of the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination. AI Mag 7(2):85Google Scholar
  60. Zhang L, Wu X, Zhu H, Abourizk SM (2017) Perceiving safety risk of buildings adjacent to tunneling excavation: an information fusion approach. Autom Constr 73:88–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zhang Q, Li M, Deng Y (2018) Measure the structure similarity of nodes in complex networks based on relative entropy. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 491:749–763MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang R, Ashuri B, Deng Y (2017) A novel method for forecasting time series based on fuzzy logic and visibility graph. Adv Data Anal Classif 11(4):759–783MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zhang Z, Liu T, Chen D, Zhang W (2014) Novel algorithm for identifying and fusing conflicting data in wireless sensor networks. Sensors 14(6):9562–9581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zheng H, Deng Y (2017) Evaluation method based on fuzzy relations between Dempster-Shafer belief structure. Int J Intell Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21956 Google Scholar
  65. Zheng H, Deng Y, Hu Y (2017) Fuzzy evidential influence diagram and its evaluation algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 131:28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zheng X, Deng Y (2018) Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on evidence credibility decay model and iowa operator. Ann Nuclear Energy 112:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhou X, Deng X, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2017) Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on D numbers and AHP. Nucl Eng Des 313:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zhou X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Chan FTS, Ishizaka A (2018) A DEMATEL-Based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP. Ann Oper Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2769-3 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhysicsUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier ScienceUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina

Personalised recommendations