A Networked Evidence Theory Framework for Critical Infrastructure Modeling

  • Chiara Foglietta
  • Andrea Gasparri
  • Stefano Panzieri
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 390)


This paper describes a distributed approach for data fusion and information sharing based on evidence theory and the transferable belief model. Evidence theory aggregates data generated from different sources in order to better assess an ongoing situation and to aid in the response and decision making processes. In the domain of critical infrastructure protection, researchers are forced to develop distributed approaches for modeling and control with a minimal exchange of data due to the existence of multiple stakeholders and interconnections between infrastructure components. Evidence theory permits the modeling of uncertainty in data fusion, but it is typically applied in a centralized manner. This paper proposes a decentralized extension of the transferable belief model that facilitates the application of evidence theory to data fusion in critical infrastructure applications. A case study is provided to demonstrate the convergence of results similar to the centralized approach, and to show the utility of fusing data in a distributed manner for interdependent critical infrastructure systems.


Modeling evidence theory situational awareness data fusion 


  1. 1.
    S. Boyd, A. Ghosh, B. Prabhakar and D. Shah, Randomized gossip algorithms, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 52(6), pp. 2508–2530, 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y. Dalal, A distributed algorithm for constructing minimal spanning trees, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 13(3), pp. 398–405, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Das, High-Level Data Fusion, Artech House, Norwood, Massachusetts, 2008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Dempster, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, in Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, R. Yager and L. Liu (Eds.), Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 57–72, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. De Porcellinis, S. Panzieri and R. Setola, Modeling critical infrastructure via a mixed holistic reductionistic approach, International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, vol. 5(1/2), pp. 86–99, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Gasparri, F. Fiorini, M. DiRocco and S. Panzieri, A networked transferable belief model approach for distributed data aggregation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part B, vol. 42(2), pp. 391–405, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Hall and J. Lawry, Generation, combination and extension of random set approximations to coherent lower and upper probabilities, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, vol. 85(1-3), pp. 89–101, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Jensen and T. Nielsen, Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs, Springer, New York, 2007.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. Ng and B. Abramson, Uncertainty management in expert systems, IEEE Expert, vol. 5(2), pp. 29–48, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1976.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Smets and R. Kennes, The transferable belief network, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 66(2), pp. 191–234, 1994.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Veremme, D. Dupont, E. Lefevre and D. Mercier, Belief assignment on compound hypotheses within the framework of the transferable belief model, Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Information Fusion, pp. 498–505, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Voorbraak, A computationally efficient approximation of Dempster-Shafer Theory, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 30(5), pp. 525–536, 1989. zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Foglietta
    • 1
  • Andrea Gasparri
    • 1
  • Stefano Panzieri
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Roma TreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations