Base belief function: an efficient method of conflict management

  • Yunjuan Wang
  • Kezhen Zhang
  • Yong DengEmail author
Original Research


Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is widely used in many applications such as decision making and pattern recognition. However, Dempster’s combination rule often produces results that do not reflect the actual distribution of belief when collected evidence highly conflicts each other. In this paper, a base belief function is proposed to modify the classical basic probability assignment before combination in closed-world. Base belief function focuses on making combination result intuitive especially when evidences highly conflict each other. Compared to other methods, the combination result produced by proposed method is logical and consistent with real world with less computational complexity and better performance. The advantage of base belief function is that it can avoid high conflicts between evidences and is especially suitable for the situation where the evidences appear in sequence. Several numerical examples as well as experiments using real data sets from the UCI machine learning repository for classification are employed to verify the rationality of the proposed method.


Dempster–Shafer evidence theory Belief function Conflicting evidence Base belief function 



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


  1. Bache K, Lichman M (2013) UCI machine learning repositoryGoogle Scholar
  2. Bian T, Deng Y (2018) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks: a node information dimension approach. Chaos. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bian T, Zheng H, Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Failure mode and effects analysis based on D numbers and TOPSIS. Qual Reliab Eng Int 34:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloch I, Hunter A, Appriou A, Ayoun A, Benferhat S, Besnard P, Cholvy L, Cooke R, Cuppens F, Dubois D (2001) Fusion: general concepts and characteristics. Int J Intell Syst 16(10):1107–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borgonovo E (2008) Epistemic uncertainty in the ranking and categorization of probabilistic safety assessment model elements: Issues and findings. Risk Anal 28(4):983–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao F, Yang J-B, Yang S-L (2015) A group evidential reasoning approach based on expert reliability. Eur J Oper Res 246(3):886–893MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen J, Ye F, Jiang T, Tian Y (2017) Conflicting information fusion based on an improved DS combination method. Symmetry 9(11):278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38(2):325–339MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deng Y (2015) Generalized evidence theory. Appl Intell 43(3):530–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng X, Deng Y (2018) D-AHP method with different credibility of information. Soft Comput. (Published online)
  11. Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures. Comput Intell 4(3):244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois D, Prade H (1992) Combination of fuzzy information in the framework of possibility theory. Data Fusion Robot Mach Intell 12:481–505MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabre S, Appriou A, Briottet X (2001) Sensor fusion integrating contextual information. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 9(03):369–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fabre S, Appriou A, Briottet X (2001) Presentation and description of two classification methods using data fusion based on sensor management. Inf Fusion 2(1):49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fabre S, Briottet X, Appriou A (2002) Impact of contextual information integration on pixel fusion. IEEE Trans Geosci Rem Sens 40(9):1997–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fabre S, Dherete P (2003) Data fusion applications: classification and mapping. In: Geoscience and remote sensing symposium, 2003. IGARSS’03. proceedings. 2003 IEEE international, IEEE, vol 2, pp 1053–1055Google Scholar
  17. Fan G, Zhong D, Yan F, Yue P (2016) A hybrid fuzzy evaluation method for curtain grouting efficiency assessment based on an AHP method extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 44:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fernandes SL, Bala JG (2017) A novel decision support for composite sketch matching using fusion of probabilistic neural network and dictionary matching. Curr Med Imaging Rev 13(2):176–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Florea MC, Jousselme AL, Bossé E, Grenier D (2009) Robust combination rules for evidence theory. Inf Fusion 10(2):183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gong Y, Xiaoyan S, Qian H, Yang N (2018) Research on fault diagnosis methods for the reactor coolant system of nuclear power plant based on DS evidence theory. Ann Nucl Energy 112:395–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gruyer D, Demmel S, Magnier V, Belaroussi R (2016) Multi-hypotheses tracking using the Dempster–Shafer theory, application to ambiguous road context. Inf Fusion 29:40–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Haenni R (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):237–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Han Y, Deng Y (2018) An evidential fractal AHP target recognition method. Def Sci J 68(4):367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Han Y, Deng Y (2018) An enhanced fuzzy evidential DEMATEL method with its application to identify critical success factors. Soft Comput 22(15):5073–5090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leung Y, Li R, Ji N (2017) Application of extended Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence in accident probability estimation for dangerous goods transportation. J Geogr Syst 19(3):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu YT, Pal NR, Marathe AR, Lin CT (2017) Weighted fuzzy Dempster-Shafer framework for multi-modal information integration. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26:338–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Han Y, Deng Y (2018) A hybrid intelligent model for assessment of critical success factors in high risk emergency system. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jafari H, Li X, Qian L, Aved A, Kroecker T (2017) Multisensor change detection on the basis of big time-series data and Dempster-Shafer theory. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 29(17):e4026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jiang W, Wei B, Xie C, Zhou D (2016) An evidential sensor fusion method in fault diagnosis. Adv Mech Eng 8(3):1687814016641820Google Scholar
  30. Jiang W, Xie C, Wei B, Zhou D (2016) A modified method for risk evaluation in failure modes and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades. Adv Mech Eng 8(4):1687814016644579Google Scholar
  31. Jiang W, Cao Y, Yang L, He Z (2017) A time-space domain information fusion method for specific emitter identification based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. Sensors 17(9):1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jiroušek R, Shenoy PP (2018) A new definition of entropy of belief functions in the Dempster-Shafer theory. Int J Approx Reason 92:49–65MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jousselme A-L, Grenier D, Bossé É (2001) A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf Fusion 2(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kabir G, Tesfamariam S, Francisque A, Sadiq R (2015) Evaluating risk of water mains failure using a Bayesian belief network model. Eur J Oper Res 240(1):220–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kang B, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018a) Generating Z-number based on OWA weights using maximum entropy. Int J Intell Syst 33(8):1745–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kang B, Chhipi-Shrestha G, Deng Y, Hewage K, Sadiq R (2018b) Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of Z-number in the evolutionary games. Appl Math Comput 324:202–217MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. Klir GJ, Folger TA (1988) Fuzzy sets, uncertainty, and informationGoogle Scholar
  38. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1996) Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems: selected papers by Lotfi A. Zadeh. World Scientific Publishing, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  39. Lefevre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P (2002) Belief function combination and conflict management. Inf Fusion 3(2):149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li M, Zhang Q, Deng Y (2018) Evidential identification of influential nodes in network of networks. Chaos Solitons Fractals. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li Y, Deng Y (2018) Generalized ordered propositions fusion based on belief entropy. Int J Comput Commun Control 13(5):792–807  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin Y, Wang C, Ma C, Dou Z, Ma X (2016) A new combination method for multisensor conflict information. J Supercomput 72(7):2874–2890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu W (2006) Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif Intell 170(11):909–924MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu H-C, You J-X, Fan X-J, Lin Q-L (2014) Failure mode and effects analysis using D numbers and grey relational projection method. Expert Syst Appl 41(10):4670–4679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ma J, Liu W, Miller P, Zhou H (2016) An evidential fusion approach for gender profiling. Inf Sci 333:10–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mo H, Deng Y (2018) A new MADA methodology based on D numbers. Int J Fuzzy Syst. MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murphy CK (2000) Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts. Decis Supp Syst 29(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peida X, Deng Y, Xiaoyan S, Mahadevan S (2013) A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data. Knowl Based Syst 46:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perez A, Tabia H, Declercq D, Zanotti A (2016) Using the conflict in Dempster–Shafer evidence theory as a rejection criterion in classifier output combination for 3D human action recognition. Image Vis Comput 55:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rota GC (1977) A mathematical theory of evidence: G. Shafer (1976). Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 297Google Scholar
  51. Shafer G (2016) Dempster’s rule of combination. Int J Approx Reason 79:26–40MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smets P (1990) The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 12(5):447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Talavera A, Aguasca R, Galván B, Cacereño A (2013) Application of Dempster–Shafer theory for the quantification and propagation of the uncertainty caused by the use of AIS data. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 111:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Utkin LV (2009) A new ranking procedure by incomplete pairwise comparisons using preference subsets. Intell Data Anal 13(2):229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Voorbraak F (1988) On the justification of Dempster’s rule of combination. Logic group preprint series, 42Google Scholar
  56. Wang P (2008) The reliable combination rule of evidence in Dempster–Shafer theory. In: Image and signal processing, 2008. CISP’08. Congress, IEEE, vol 2, pp 166–170Google Scholar
  57. Wang J, Liu F (2017) Temporal evidence combination method for multi-sensor target recognition based on DS theory and IFS. J Syst Eng Electr 28(6):1114–1125Google Scholar
  58. Wang J, Qiao K, Zhang Z, Xiang F (2017) A new conflict management method in Dempster-Shafer theory. Int J Distrib Sens Netw 13(3):1550147717696506Google Scholar
  59. Wu Y (2017) Fault diagnosis of civil aircraft electrical system based on evidence theory. In: Information fusion (Fusion), 2017 20th international conference, IEEE, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  60. Xiao F (2017) A novel evidence theory and fuzzy preference approach-based multi-sensor data fusion technique for fault diagnosis. Sensors 17(11):2504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xiao F (2018) A hybrid fuzzy soft sets decision making method in medical diagnosis. IEEE Access 6:25300–25312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. Xiao F (2019) Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy. Inf Fusion 46(2019):23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yager RR (1987) On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41(2):93–137MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yager RR (2014) An intuitionistic view of the Dempster-Shafer belief structure. Soft Comput 18(11):2091–2099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yang J-B, Dong-Ling X (2013) Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artif Intell 205:1–29MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Yao James TP (2001) Probability, reliability and statistical methods in engineering design by A. Haldar and S. Mahadevan. J Struct Eng 127Google Scholar
  69. Ye F, Chen J, Li Y (2017) Improvement of DS evidence theory for multi-sensor conflicting information. Symmetry 9(5):69MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Measuring transferring similarity via local information. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 498:102–115MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yin L, Deng Y (2018) Toward uncertainty of weighted networks: an entropy-based model. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 508:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yong D, WenKang S, ZhenFu Z, Qi L (2004) Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence. Decis Supp Syst 38(3):489–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zadeh LA (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
  74. Zhang R, Ashuri B, Deng Y (2018) A novel method for forecasting time series based on fuzzy logic and visibility graph. Adv Data Anal Classif 11(4):759–783MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhang W, Deng Y (2018) Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL method. Soft Comput.
  76. Zheng H, Deng Y (2018) Evaluation method based on fuzzy relations between Dempster–Shafer belief structure. Int J Intell Syst 33(7):1343–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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 ResGoogle Scholar
  78. Zhu W, Yang H, Jin Y, Liu B (2017) A method for recognizing fatigue driving based on Dempster–Shafer theory and fuzzy neural network. Math Prob EngGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier ScienceUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.The School of Electronic and Information EngineeringXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations