4.5 Article

A modified combination rule in generalized evidence theory

Journal

APPLIED INTELLIGENCE
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 630-640

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-016-0851-6

Keywords

Dempster-Shafer evidence theory; Generalized evidence theory; Generalized basic probability assignment; Generalized combination rule; Modified generalized combination rule

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61671384]
  2. Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China [2016JM6018]
  3. Fund of SAST [SAST2016083]
  4. Seed Foundation of Innovation and Creation for Graduate Students in Northwestern Polytechnical University [Z2016122]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dempster-Shafer evidence theory is an efficient tool used in knowledge reasoning and decision-making under uncertain environments. Conflict management is an open issue in Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. There is no good practice that can be generally accepted until the presence of generalized evidence theory (GET). GET addresses conflict management in an open world, where the frame of discernment (FOD) is incomplete since uncertainty and lacking knowledge. With the in-depth study, however, the original generalized combination rule (GCR) still has its issue. As an example, based on the original GCR, the system judges whether the FOD is complete or not even though the GBPAs clearly indicate that the proposition is outside of FOD. In this paper, we proposed a modified generalized combination rule (mGCR) in the framework of GET. The mGCR satisfies all properties of GCR in GET, illustrating and modeling the real world more reasonably than the original. Numerical examples demonstrate that mGCR combines GBPAs effectively and has more distinct geometric and physical meaning than the original GCR. Several experiments using real data sets are presented at the end of this paper to evaluate the effectiveness of mGCR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available