Information Quality in Information Fusion and Decision Making with Applications to 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.

References

  1. Appriou A (2001) Situation assessment based on spatially ambiguous multisensor measurements. Intl J Intell Syst 16(10):1135–1166CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 1370–1377Google Scholar
  3. 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 5099Google Scholar
  4. 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 285–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovee M, Srivastava RP, Mak B (2003) A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality. Int J Intell Syst 18:51–74CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):853–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cholvy L, Nimier V (2003) Information evaluation: discussion about STANAG 2022 Recommendations. In: Proc. of the RTO IST Symposium on military data and information fusionGoogle Scholar
  8. Chopra K, Haimson C (2005) Information fusion for intelligence analysis. In: The Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciencesGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 78–88Google Scholar
  10. Delmotte F, Smets P (2004) Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of dempster-shafer model. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 34:457–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dragas V (2013) An ontological analysis of uncertainty in soft data. In: Proc. of the 16th international conference on information fusion, Istanbul, Turkey, pp 1566–1573Google Scholar
  12. Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Possibility theory: an approach to computerized processing of uncertainty. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 481–505Google 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 2:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):170–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haenni R (2005) Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule. In: 7th International conference on information fusion (FUSION), pp 879–884Google Scholar
  17. Helfert M (2001) Managing and measuring data quality in data warehousing. In: Proc. of the world multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, pp 55–65Google Scholar
  18. Helfert M (2001) Managing and measuring data quality in data warehousing. In: Proc. of the World multiconference on systemics, cybernetics and informatics, pp 55–65Google Scholar
  19. Hexmoor H, Wilson S, Bhattaram S (2006) A theoretical inter-organizational trust-based security model. Knowl Eng Rev 21(2):127–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 882–887Google Scholar
  21. 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 1207–1214Google Scholar
  22. Juran JB, Godfrey AB (1988) Juran’s quality handbook, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Klir GJ, Wierman MJ (1999) Uncertainty-based lnformation, vol 15, 2nd edn, Studies in fuzziness in Soft Contputing. Physica, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 4200:383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krause P, Clark D (1993) Representing uncertain Knowledge: an Artificial Intelligence Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Lee Y, Pipino L, Frank J, Wang R (2006) Journey to data quality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 2Google Scholar
  28. O’Brien JA, Marakas G (2005) Introduction to information systems. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Pichon F, Dubois D, Denoeux T (2012) Relevance and truthfulness in information correction and fusion. Int J Approx Reason 53(2):159–175CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, TXGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogova G, Bosse E (2010) Information quality in information fusion. In: Proc. of the 13th International conference on information fusion, Edinburg, Scotland, July 2010Google Scholar
  32. Rogova G, Nimier V (2004) Reliability in information fusion: literature survey. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2004-7th Conference on multisource-information fusion, pp 1158–1165Google Scholar
  33. 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 fusionGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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 298–305Google Scholar
  36. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 225–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smets P (2002) Data fusion in the transferable belief model. In: Proc. of the FUSION’2000-Third conference on multisource-multisensor information fusion, pp 21–33Google Scholar
  39. Smithson M (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Standard 8402, 3. I (1986) International organization of standardsGoogle Scholar
  41. Tawfik AY, Neufeld EM (1996) Irrelevance in uncertain temporal reasoning. In: Proc of the 3rd Intl. IEEE workshop on temporal representation and reasoning, pp 196–202Google Scholar
  42. 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 1–8Google Scholar
  43. Varshney P (1997) Multisensor data fusion. Electron Commun Eng J 9(6):245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. von Neuman J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. Wald L (2002) Data fusion: definitions and architectures: fusion of images of different spatial resolution. Les Presses, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang R, Strong D (1996) Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J Manage Inf Syst 12:5–34CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang Y, Wang R (1996) Anchoring data quality dimensions in ontological foundations. Commun ACM 39(11):86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. White FE (1988) A model for data fusion. In: Proc. 1st National symposium on sensor fusionGoogle Scholar
  49. Yager R (2012) Conditional approach to possibility-probability fusion. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 20(1):46–55CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations