4.5 Article

Cross entropy of mass function and its application in similarity measure

期刊

APPLIED INTELLIGENCE
卷 52, 期 8, 页码 8337-8350

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10489-021-02890-6

关键词

Mass function; Cross entropy; Similarity; Belief entropy; Information fusion

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61973332]
  2. JSPS Invitational Fellowships for Research in Japan (Short-term)
  3. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper introduces the Dempster-Shafer (D-S) evidence theory and proposes new measures of cross entropy and similarity based on mass functions, with discussions on their rationality and effectiveness.
Dempster-Shafer (D-S) evidence theory needs the weaker conditions than Bayesian probability theory by assigning the probability into power sets. Hence it has the more stronger ability to express imprecise and unknown information which can be used in many fields. In D-S evidence theory, how to measure the cross entropy between different mass functions is also an open issue. Hence, the paper proposed the new cross entropy by considering the cardinality of mass function which is compatible with classical cross entropy. In addition, there are some numerical examples to explain the reasonableness of proposed cross entropy. Cross entropy can describe the difference of information. Similarity is also an effective method to measure the non-difference of information. It is an interesting question to set the relationship between cross entropy and similarity. Hence, the paper proposed similarity measure based on the entropy and cross entropy. Besides, the paper also discussed some measurement axioms of proposed similarity measure to verify its reasonableness. Finally, based on the new similarity measure, the paper proposed new classification method under D-S evidence theory. The IRIS data set is used to the classification method to verify the effectiveness of its by setting different the number of training data and comparing with other methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据