Method of Detection the Consistent Subgroups of Expert Assessments in a Group Based on Measures of Dissimilarity in Evidence Theory
Abstract
The procedure for dividing the initial set of group expert assessments into subgroups containing homogeneous, consistent estimates has been proposed in this paper. The proposed approach allows to distinguish groups of experts, with a “close” opinion, to analyze them in order to develop a final (group) assessment that takes into account the opinions (arguments) of each expert. For dividing the expert group into subgroups with consistent opinions, the mathematical apparatus of the Dempster-Shafer theory was used. In contrast to existing approaches, this theory allows to take into account specific forms of un-factors, such as combination of uncertainty and vagueness arising in the process of interaction between expert judgments (evidence). Metrics of evidence theory characterizing the degree of proximity of expert assessments are taken as a measure of consistency. The Jousselme’s, Euclidean, Wang, Bhattacharyya’s and Tessem’s distances have been analyzed in this paper. Expert evidence is considered to belong to one group if the value of the specified metric (distance) for all evidence of this group does not exceed a specified threshold value. The farthest neighbor and average linkage methods have been used in paper to determine the order of grouping expert evidence in accordance with the degree of their similarity (dissimilarity). Numerical calculations of the proposed procedure of formation of consistent groups of expert evidences are provided. The results obtained allow to carry out a more profound analysis of the obtained expert information aimed at a synthesis an effective and substantiated group decisions.
Keywords
Evidence theory Dissimilarity measures Expert evidence UncertaintyNotes
Acknowledgment
This research was partially supported by the state research project “Development of information and communication decision support technologies for strategic decision-making with multiple criteria and uncertainty for military-civilian use” (research project no. 0117U007144, financed by the Government of Ukraine).
References
- 1.Kiseleeva, N.E., Pankova, L.A., Shneiderman, M.V.: Strukturnyi podkhod k analizu I obrabotke dannykh ekspertnogo oprosa. Avtomatika i Telemekhanika 4, 64–70 (1975). (in Russian)Google Scholar
- 2.Orlov, A.I.: Nechislovaia statistika. MZ-Press, Moscow (2004). (in Russian)Google Scholar
- 3.Kemeni, D.zh., Snell, D.zh.: Kiberneticheskoe modelirovanie: Nekotorye prilozheniia. Sovetskoe radio, Moscow (1972)Google Scholar
- 4.Kovalenko, I.I., Shved, A.V.: Clustering of group expert estimates based on measures in the theory of evidence. Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu 4(154), 71–78 (2016)Google Scholar
- 5.Shafer, G.A.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 6.Dempster, A.P.: A generalization of Bayesian inference. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 30, 205–247 (1968)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 7.Beynon, M.J.: The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modeling. Omega 28(1), 37–50 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kovalenko, I.I., Shved, A.V.: Development the technology of structuring of group expert estimates under different types of uncertainty. Eastern-Eur. J. Enterp. Technol. 3/4(93), 60–68 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.133299
- 9.Shved, A., Davydenko, Y.e.: The analysis of uncertainty measures with various types of evidence. In: 1th International Conference on Data Stream Mining & Processing, pp. 61–64. IEEE Press, Lviv, Ukraine (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/DSMP.2016.7583508
- 10.Sentz, K., Ferson, S.: Combination of evidence in Dempster-Shafer theory. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Kovalenko, I., Davydenko, Y.e., Shved, A.: Development of the procedure for integrated application of scenario prediction methods. Eastern-Eur. J. Enterp. Technol. 2/4(98), 31–37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2019.163871
- 12.Jousselme, A.L., Grenier, D., Bossé, E.: A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf. Fus. 2, 91–101 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Jousselme, A.L., Grenier, D., Bossé, E.: Analyzing approximation algorithms in the theory of evidence. Sens. Fus. Architect. Algorithms Appl. VI(4731), 65–74 (2002)Google Scholar
- 14.Florea, M.C., Bosse, E.: Crisis management using dempster-shafer theory: using dissimilarity measures to characterize sources’ reliability. In: C3I in Crisis, Emergency and Consequence Management, RTO-MP-IST-086, Bucharest, Romania (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Bouchon-Meunie, B., Diaz, J., Rifqui, M.: A similarity measure between basic belief assignments. In: 9th International conference on Information Fusion, pp. 1–6. IEEE Press, Florence, Italy (2006)Google Scholar
- 16.Cuzzolin, F.: A geometric approach to the theory of evidence. Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C: Appl. Rev. 38(4), 1–13 (2007)Google Scholar
- 17.Wang, Z.: Theory and technology research of target identification fusion of C4ISR system. Ph.D. Thesis. National Defense Science and Technology University, China (2001)Google Scholar
- 18.Bhattacharyya, A.: On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distribution. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 35, 99–110 (1943)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
- 19.Tessem, B.: Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence. Artif. Intell. 61, 315–329 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Martin, A., Jousselme, A.L., Osswald, C.: Conflict measure for the discounting operation on belief functions. In: 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, pp. 1–8. IEEE Press, Cologne, Germany (2008)Google Scholar