Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Information Quality in Information Fusion and Decision Making with Applications to Crisis Management

  • Chapter
Fusion Methodologies in Crisis Management

Abstract

Designing fusion systems for decision support in complex dynamic situations such as crises requires fusion of a large amount of multimedia and multispectral information coming from geographically distributed sources to produce estimates about objects and gain knowledge of the entire domain of interest. Information to be fused and made sense of includes but is not limited to data obtained from physical sensors, surveillance reports, human intelligence reports, operational information, and information obtained from social medial, opportunistic sensors and traditional open sources (internet, radio, TV, etc.). Successful processing of this information may also demand information sharing and dissemination, and action cooperation of multiple stakeholders. Decision making in such environment calls for designing a fusion-based human–machine system characterizing constant information exchange between all nodes of the processing. The quality of decision making strongly depends on the success of being aware of, and compensating for, insufficient information quality at each step of information exchange. Designing the methods of representing and incorporating information quality into such processing is a relatively new and a rather difficult problem. The chapter discusses major challenges and suggests some approaches to address this problem.

This chapter is an extended and revised version of (Rogova and Bosse 2010)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the rest of this chapter, data and information will be used interchangeably.

  2. 2.

    JDL: Joint Directors of Laboratories, a US DoD government committee overseeing US defense technology R&D; the Data Fusion Group of the JDL created the original data fusion 4 level model.

  3. 3.

    Usually this measure is referred to uncertainty only and is called “higher order uncertainty,” which is treated without relation to the other quality attributes. Here we define this measure for any quality characteristic and consider it with relation to other attributes.

References

  • Appriou A (2001) Situation assessment based on spatially ambiguous multisensor measurements. Intl J Intell Syst 16(10):1135–1166

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bisdikian C, Kaplan L, Srivastava M, Thornley D, Verma D, Young R (2009) Building principles for a quality of information, specification for sensor information. In: Proc. of the 12th International conference on information fusion, Seattle, WA, USA, 6–9 July, pp 1370–1377

    Google Scholar 

  • Blasch EP, Plano S (2003) Level 5: user refinement to aid the fusion process. In: Dasarathy B (ed) Multisensor, multisource information fusion: architectures, algorithms, and applications. Proc of the SPIE, vol 5099

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosc P, Prade H (1997) An Introduction to the fuzzy set and possibility theory-based treatment of flexible queries and uncertain or imprecise databases. In: Motro A, Smets P (eds) Uncertainty in information systems: from needs to solutions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 285–324

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bovee M, Srivastava RP, Mak B (2003) A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality. Int J Intell Syst 18:51–74

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chengalur-Smith I, Ballou D, Pazer H (1999) The impact of data quality information on decision making: an exploratory analysis. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 11(6):853–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cholvy L, Nimier V (2003) Information evaluation: discussion about STANAG 2022 Recommendations. In: Proc. of the RTO IST Symposium on military data and information fusion

    Google Scholar 

  • Chopra K, Haimson C (2005) Information fusion for intelligence analysis. In: The Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmotte F, Borne P (1998) Context-dependent trust in data fusion within the possibility theory. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Intl. conference on systems, man and cybernetics, pp 78–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmotte F, Smets P (2004) Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of dempster-shafer model. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 34:457–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dragas V (2013) An ontological analysis of uncertainty in soft data. In: Proc. of the 16th international conference on information fusion, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 1566–1573

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Possibility theory: an approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. Plenum, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois D, Prade H (1992) Combination of fuzzy information in the framework of possibility theory. In: Abidi MA, Gonzalez RC (eds) Data fusion in robotics and machine intelligence. Academic, San Diego, CA, pp 481–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabre S, Appriou A, Briottet X (2001) Presentation and description of two classification methods using data fusion based on sensor management. Inf Fusion 2:47–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher CW, Chengalur-Smith I, Ballou DP (2003) The impact of experience and time on the use of data quality information in decision making. Inf Syst Res 14(2):170–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haenni R (2005) Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule. In: 7th International conference on information fusion (FUSION), pp 879–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfert M (2001) Managing and measuring data quality in data warehousing. In: Proc. of the world multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, pp 55–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfert M (2001) Managing and measuring data quality in data warehousing. In: Proc. of the World multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, pp 55–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Hexmoor H, Wilson S, Bhattaram S (2006) A theoretical inter-organizational trust-based security model. Knowl Eng Rev 21(2):127–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang W, Zhang A, Yang Q (2008) A new method to determine evidence discounting coefficient. In: Huang D-S et al (eds) ICIC 2008, vol 5226, LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 882–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Jousselme A-L, Maupin P, Bosse E (2003) Uncertainty in a situation analysis perspective. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2003-6th Conference on multisource-information fusion, pp 1207–1214

    Google Scholar 

  • Juran JB, Godfrey AB (1988) Juran’s quality handbook, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir GJ, Wierman MJ (1999) Uncertainty-based lnformation, vol 15, 2nd edn, Studies in fuzziness in Soft Contputing. Physica, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoulas D, Aldunate R, Pena-Mora F, Lakhera S (2006) A decentralized trust model to reduce information unreliability in complex disaster relief operations, intelligent computing in engineering and architecture. Lect Notes Comput Sci 4200:383–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause P, Clark D (1993) Representing uncertain Knowledge: an Artificial Intelligence Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lee Y, Pipino L, Frank J, Wang R (2006) Journey to data quality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Madnick SE, Lee YW, Wang RY, Zhu H (2009) Overview and framework for data and information quality research. ACM J Data Inf Qual 1(1): Article 2

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien JA, Marakas G (2005) Introduction to information systems. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pichon F, Dubois D, Denoeux T (2012) Relevance and truthfulness in information correction and fusion. Int J Approx Reason 53(2):159–175

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rogova G (2014) Adaptive real-time threat assessment under uncertainty and conflict. In: Proc. 4th IEEE conference on cognitive methods in situation awareness and decision support, San Antonio, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogova G, Bosse E (2010) Information quality in information fusion. In: Proc. of the 13th International conference on information fusion, Edinburg, Scotland, July 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogova G, Nimier V (2004) Reliability in information fusion: literature survey. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2004-7th Conference on multisource-information fusion, pp 1158–1165

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogova G, Scott P, Lollett C, Mudiyanur R (2006) Reasoning about situations in the early post-disaster response environment. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2006-9th Conference on multisource information fusion

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogova G, Hadrazagic M, St-Hilaire M-O, Florea M, Valin P (2013) Context-based information quality for sequential decision making. In: Proc. of the 2013 IEEE international multi-disciplinary conference on cognitive methods in situation awareness and decision support (CogSIMA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert J (2008) Conflict management in Dempster-Shafer theory by sequential discounting using the degree of falsity. In: Magdalena L, Ojeda-Aciego M, Verdegay JL (eds), Proceedings of IPMU‘08, Torremolinos (Malaga), 22–27 June 2008, pp 298–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Smets P (1997) Imperfect information: imprecision—uncertainty. In: Motro A, Smets P (eds) Uncertainty management in information systems: from needs to solutions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 225–254

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smets P (2002) Data fusion in the transferable belief model. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2000-Third conference on multisource-multisensor information fusion, pp 21–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Smithson M (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Standard 8402, 3. I (1986) International organization of standards

    Google Scholar 

  • Tawfik AY, Neufeld EM (1996) Irrelevance in uncertain temporal reasoning. In: Proc of the 3rd Intl. IEEE workshop on temporal representation and reasoning, pp 196–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Uddin M, Amin M, Le H, Abdelzaher T, Szymanski B, Nguyen T (2012) On diversifying source selection in social sensing. In: Proc. of the 9th International conference on networked sensing systems (INSS), pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Varshney P (1997) Multisensor data fusion. Electron Commun Eng J 9(6):245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Neuman J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Wald L (2002) Data fusion: definitions and architectures: fusion of images of different spatial resolution. Les Presses, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris, France

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang R, Strong D (1996) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst 12:5–34

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Wang R (1996) Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Commun ACM 39(11):86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White FE (1988) A model for data fusion. In: Proc. 1st National symposium on sensor fusion

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager R (2012) Conditional approach to possibility-probability fusion. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):46–55

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

    Galina L. Rogova

Authors
  1. Galina L. Rogova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Galina L. Rogova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA

    Galina Rogova

  2. State University of New Yorkat Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA

    Peter Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rogova, G.L. (2016). Information Quality in Information Fusion and Decision Making with Applications to Crisis Management. In: Rogova, G., Scott, P. (eds) Fusion Methodologies in Crisis Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22527-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22527-2_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22526-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22527-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation