Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Shades and Hiddenness of Conflict

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 12897))

  • 708 Accesses

Abstract

Conflict, dissonance, inconsistency, entropy. There are many notions related to one phenomenon. When working with uncertainty, there can be different sources of information, and often they are in some level of mutual disagreement. When working with belief functions, one of the approaches how to measure conflict is closely connected with a belief mass assigned by the non-normalized conjunctive rule to the empty set. Recently, we have observed and presented cases where a conflict of belief functions is hidden (there is a zero mass assigned to the empty set by the non-normalized conjunctive rule). Above that, we distinguish several degrees of such a hiddeness. In parallel, Pichon et al. introduced a new family of conflict measures of different strengths, the so-called shades of conflict. In this paper, we compare both approaches not only from the theoretical point of view but also by examples.

This work was supported by the institutional support RVO: 67985807 (first author) and grant GA ČR 19-04579S (second author).

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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 this comparison, we present just the notions necessary for understanding of both the compared approaches, for more detail including motivations see [9] and [13]. For irrelevance of dependence/independence of belief sources for conflicts see also [9].

  2. 2.

    Note, that this union is called a core of a belief function and denoted by \(\mathcal {C} \) by Shafer in [14] ; on the other hand Cuzzolin uses a completely different (conjunctive) core defined as \(\mathcal {C} = \bigcap _{A \in \mathcal {F} } A\) in [2].

  3. 3.

    More precisely, Martin et al.do not use , but \(\oplus \) sign, which we use as Shafer in his normalized approach [14] for Demspter’s rule, where always \(m(\emptyset )=0\), \((m_i \oplus m_j)(\emptyset )=0\) and \((\bigoplus _1^k m)(\emptyset ) = 0\).

  4. 4.

    There are focal elements \(m',m''\) substituted by some of \(m^{+}, m^{++}, m^{*}, m^{**} \) in the following extensions; analogously focal elements \(m^{i}, m^{ii} \) are substituted by \(m^{xi} \) and/or \(m^{xii} \) later in extensions of the Little Angel example.

  5. 5.

    Note, that denotes here always the result of non-normalized conjunctive combination of a couple of bbas corresponding to the example extension in question, thus it varies and we can see its precise definition from the context.

  6. 6.

    Let us notice, that the example from Fig. 4 (iii) is, in fact, discounting of that from 4 (i), hence conflict decreasing while the number of defined shades of conflict is increased from 3 to 8; and analogously 3 (iii) is discounting of 3 (i) with four more shades.

  7. 7.

    There are interesting open issues: what is max number of shades of conflict related to a hidden conflict for this example; in general on \(\varOmega _5\), and in full generality on \(\varOmega _n\)? And analogously, a number of shades related to a hidden conflict of the 2-nd degree and k-th degree?.

  8. 8.

    More correctly, there are \(2^n-1\) measures \(\kappa _N\) for BFs on \(\varOmega _n\), where only \(|{\mathcal F_{12} } |\) values are defined as N-conflict of corresponding BFs \(m_1\) and \(m_2\) by Pichon et al. [13]. Nevertheless, on the other hand, a degree of auto-conflict is not limited, thus there exist values of \(\kappa _N(m_1,m_2)\) for all \(N \le 2^n - 1\) regardless the definitions from Sect. 4, originally from [13] : ; in fact there exist values for any finite N and limit is either 0 for totally non-conflicting BFs or 1 if there is any kind of conflict.

References

  1. Almond, R.G.: Graphical belief modeling, 1st edn. CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton (1995). https://www.routledge.com/Graphical-Belief-Modeling/Almond/p/book/9780412066610

  2. Cuzzolin, F.: On consistent approximations of belief functions in the mass space. In: Liu, W. (ed.) ECSQARU 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6717, pp. 287–298. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-22152-1_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Daniel, M.: Conflicts within and between belief functions. In: Hüllermeier, E., Kruse, R., Hoffmann, F. (eds.) IPMU 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6178, pp. 696–705. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14049-5_71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Daniel, M.: Non-conflicting and conflicting parts of belief functions. In: 7th International Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories and Applications (ISIPTA 2011), pp. 149–158. SIPTA, Innsbruck (2011). https://www.sipta.org/isipta11/proceedings/041.html

  5. Daniel, M.: Conflict between belief functions: a new measure based on their non-conflicting parts. In: Cuzzolin, F. (ed.) BELIEF 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8764, pp. 321–330. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11191-9_35

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Daniel, M., Kratochvíl, V.: Hidden auto-conflict in the theory of belief functions. In: Proceedings of the 20th Czech-Japan Seminar on Data Analysis and Decision Making under Uncertainty (CJS 2017), pp. 34–45 (2017). http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0276743

  7. Daniel, M., Kratochvíl, V.: Belief functions and degrees of non-conflictness. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Ognjanović, Z. (eds.) ECSQARU 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11726, pp. 125–136. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Daniel, M., Kratochvíl, V.: On hidden conflicts of belief functions. In: 11th Conference of the European Society for Fuzzy Logic and Technology (EUSFLAT 2019). Atlantis Press (2019). https://doi.org/10.2991/eusflat-19.2019.70

  9. Daniel, M., Kratochvíl, V.: Hidden conflicts of belief functions. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 14, 438–452 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.201008.001

  10. Destercke, S., Dubois, D.: Idempotent conjunctive combination of belief functions: extending the minimum rule of possibility theory. Inf. Sci. 181(18), 3925–3945 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.05.007

  11. Destercke, S., Burger, T.: Toward an axiomatic definition of conflict between belief functions. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 43(2), 585–596 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2012.2212703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Martin, A., Jousselme, A.L., Osswald, C.: Conflict measure for the discounting operation on belief functions. In: 11th International Conference on Information Fusion. IEEE (2008). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4632320

  13. Pichon, F., Jousselme, A.L., Abdallah, N.B.: Several shades of conflict. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 366, 63–84 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2019.01.014

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Shafer, G.: A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press Princeton (1976). https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691100425/a-mathematical-theory-of-evidence

  15. Smets, P.: Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 38(2), 133–147 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2004.05.003

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Smets, P., Kennes, R.: The transferable belief model. Artif. Intell. 66(2), 191–234 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)90026-4

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Yager, R.R.: On considerations of credibility of evidence. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 7, 45–72 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0888-613X(92)90024-T

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Computer Sciences, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czechia

    Milan Daniel

  2. Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czechia

    Václav Kratochvíl

Authors
  1. Milan Daniel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Václav Kratochvíl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Václav Kratochvíl .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Prague, Czech Republic

    Jiřina Vejnarová

  2. Insight Centre for Data Analytics, School of Computer Science and IT University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Nic Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Daniel, M., Kratochvíl, V. (2021). Comparison of Shades and Hiddenness of Conflict. In: Vejnarová, J., Wilson, N. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12897. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86772-0_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86771-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86772-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation