Advertisement

The Internal Conflict of a Belief Function

  • Johan Schubert
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 164)

Abstract

In this paper we define and derive an internal conflict of a belief function We decompose the belief function in question into a set of generalized simple support functions (GSSFs). Removing the single GSSF supporting the empty set we obtain the base of the belief function as the remaining GSSFs. Combining all GSSFs of the base set, we obtain a base belief function by definition. We define the conflict in Dempster’s rule of the combination of the base set as the internal conflict of the belief function. Previously the conflict of Dempster’s rule has been used as a distance measure only between consonant belief functions on a conceptual level modeling the disagreement between two sources. Using the internal conflict of a belief function we are able to extend this also to non-consonant belief functions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dempster, A.P.: Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multiple valued mapping. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38, 325–339 (1967)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dempster, A.P.: A generalization of Bayesian inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 30, 205–247 (1968)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dempster, A.P.: The Dempster-Shafer calculus for statisticians. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48, 365–377 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haenni, R.: Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule of combination. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Fusion, pp. 879–884 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jousselme, A.-L., Maupin, P.: Distances in evidence theory: Comprehensive survey and generalizations. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 53, 118–145 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klein, J., Colot, O.: Automatic discounting rate computation using a dissent criterion. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Theory of Belief Functions, pp. 1–6 (paper 124) (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, W.: Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artificial Intelligence 170, 909–924 (2006)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schubert, J.: On nonspecific evidence. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 8, 711–725 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schubert, J.: Clustering belief functions based on attracting and conflicting metalevel evidence using Potts spin mean field theory. Information Fusion 5, 309–318 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schubert, J.: Managing decomposed belief functions. In: Bouchon-Meunier, B., Marsala, C., Rifqi, M., Yager, R.R. (eds.) Uncertainty and Intelligent Information Systems, pp. 91–103. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schubert, J.: Clustering decomposed belief functions using generalized weights of conflict. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 48, 466–480 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schubert, J.: Conflict management in Dempster-Shafer theory using the degree of falsity. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52, 449–460 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schubert, J.: Constructing and evaluating alternative frames of discernment. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 53, 176–189 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shafer, G.: A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1976)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smets, P.: The canonical decomposition of a weighted belief. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1896–1901 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Smets, P.: Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions. Information Fusion 8, 387–412 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Decision Support Systems, Division of Information and Aeronautical SystemsSwedish Defence Research AgencyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations