Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Discrete-valued belief structures combination and normalization using evidential reasoning rule

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discrete-valued belief structures (DBSs) (known as discrete belief structures) are universal in real life, differ from precise-valued belief structures, and interval-valued belief structures (IBSs). However, the combination of different discrete belief structures presents a problem that has yet to be solved. Therefore, this study investigated the respective counter-intuitive types of behavior associated with the combination of discrete belief structures within the frameworks of the Dempster-Shafer theory. (DST) evidential reasoning (ER) for the purpose of constructing a more general method for the combination and normalization of discrete evidence. Finally, an experimental application is provided to indicate that the proposed method is suitable for combining and normalizing conflict-free/conflicting discrete evidence, and can effectively solve problems involving group decision-making (GDM) with uncertain preference ordinals, such as in a software selection problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. Ann Math Stat 38:325–339

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Telmoudi A, Chakhar S (2004) Data fusion application from evidential databases as a support for decision making. Inf Softw Technol 46:547–555

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dou Z, Sun Y, Lin Y (2014) The optimization model of target recognition based on wireless sensor network. Int J Distributed Sensor Networks 10:2885–2888

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beynon M, Cosker D, Marshall D (2001) An expert system for multi-criteria decision making using Dempster Shafer theory. Expert Syst Appl 20:357–367

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wang YM, Yang JB (2006) Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Eur J Oper Res 174:1885–1913

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu ZG, Pan Q, Dezert J (2013) Evidential classifier for imprecise data based on belief functions. Knowl-Based Syst 52:246–257

    Google Scholar 

  8. Xu PD, Deng Y et al (2013) A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data. Knowl-Based Syst 46:69–80

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frikha A (2014) On the use of a multi-criteria approach for reliability estimation in belief function theory. Information Fusion 18:20–32

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bazargan-Lari MR (2014) An evidential reasoning approach to optimal monitoring of drinking water distribution systems for detecting deliberate contamination events. J Clean Prod 78:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang YJ, Deng XY et al (2012) Assessment of E-commerce security using AHP and evidential reasoning. Expert Syst Appl 39:3611–3623

    Google Scholar 

  12. Yang JB, Singh MG (1994) An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, Cybernetics 24:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fu C, Wang YM (2015) An interval difference based evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights and utilities of assessment grades. Comput Ind Eng 81:109–117

    Google Scholar 

  14. Du YW, Yang N, Ning J (2018) IFS/ER-based large-scale multiattribute group decision-making method by considering expert knowledge structure. Knowledge Based Syst 162:124–135

    Google Scholar 

  15. Monney PA (2003) Analyzing linear regression models with hints and the Dempster-Shafer theory. Int J Intell Syst 18:5–29

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Petit-Renaud S, Denoeux T (2004) Nonparametric regression analysis of uncertain and imprecise data using belief functions. Int J Approx Reason 35:1–28

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Liu J, Yang JB et al (2004) Fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach for safety analysis. Int J Gen Syst 33:183–204

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang LM, Ding LY et al (2017) An improved Dempster-Shafer approach to construction safety risk perception. Knowl-Based Syst 132:30–46

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fu C, Huhns M, Yang SL (2014) A consensus framework for multiple attribute group decision analysis in an evidential reasoning context. Information Fusion 17:22–35

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang D, Yan XP et al (2016) Use of fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach in the navigational risk assessment of inland waterway transportation systems. Saf Sci 82:352–360

    Google Scholar 

  21. Xu XB, Zheng J et al (2017) Data classification using evidence reasoning rule. Knowl-Based Syst 116:144–151

    Google Scholar 

  22. Polat G, Cetindere F, Damci A, Bingol BN (2016) Smart home subcontractor selection using the integration of AHP and evidential reasoning approaches. Procedia Eng 164:347–353

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kong GL, Xu DL et al (2016) Belief rule-based inference for predicting trauma outcome. Knowl-Based Syst 95:35–44

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kong GL, Xu DL et al (2015) Combined medical quality assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. Expert Syst Appl 42:5522–5530

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wang YM, Elhag TM (2007) A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression analysis in modelling bridge risks. Expert Syst Appl 32:336–348

    Google Scholar 

  26. Yang JB, Xu DL (2013) Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination. Artif Intell 205:1–29

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL, Chin KS (2006) The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees. Eur J Oper Res 175:35–66

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang YM, Yang JB et al (2007) On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures. Inf Sci 177:1230–1247

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Sevastianov P, Dymova L, Bartosiewicz P (2012) A framework for rule-base evidential reasoning in the interval setting applied to diagnosing type 2 diabetes. Expert Syst Appl 39:4190–4200

    Google Scholar 

  30. Song YF, Wang XD et al (2014) Combination of interval-valued belief structures based on intuitionistic fuzzy set. Knowl-Based Syst 67:61–70

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang XX, Wang YM, Chen SQ, Chu JF (2019) Evidential reasoning rule for interval-valued belief structures combination. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 37:2231–2242

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang XX, Wang YM, Chen SQ, Chen L (2019) On the combination and normalization of conflicting interval-valued belief structures. Comput Ind Eng 137:106020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen SQ, Wang YM et al (2018) Evidential reasoning with discrete belief structures. Information Fusion 41:91–104

    Google Scholar 

  34. Smets P, Kennes R (1994) The transferable belief model. Artif Intell 66:191–234

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu WR (2006) Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif Intell 170:909–924

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen SQ, Wang YM et al (2017) Alliance-based evidential reasoning approach with unknown evidence weights. Expert Syst Appl 78:193–207

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lee SG, Ma YS, Thimm GL, Verstraeten J (2008) Product lifecycle management in aviation maintenance, repair and overhaul. Comput Ind 59:296–303

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tang DB, Qian XM (2008) Product lifecycle management for automotive development focusing on supplier integration. Comput Ind 59:288–295

    Google Scholar 

  39. González-Pachón J, Romero C (2001) Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: an interval goal programming approach. Comput Oper Res 28:827–834

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Fan ZP, Liu Y (2010) An approach to solve group-decision-making problems with ordinal interval numbers. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernetics 40:1413–1423

    Google Scholar 

  41. Fan ZP, Yue Q, Feng B, Liu Y (2010) An approach to group decision-making with uncertain preference ordinals. Comput Ind Eng 58:51–57

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dopazo E, Martnez-Cspedes ML (2017) Rank aggregation methods dealing with ordinal uncertain preferences. Expert Syst Appl 78:103–109

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under the Grant No. 61773123 and 71801050, the National Social Science Foundation of China (19BGL016), New Century Excellent Talents Support Program of Fujian Higher Education Institutions (Fujian education department [2018] No.47), and the Anhui Provincial Planning Project of Philosophy and Social Science (AHSKQ2019D024).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Decision Sciences Institute, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, 350116, People’s Republic of China

    Xing-Xian Zhang, Ying-Ming Wang & Lei Chen

  2. School of Architecture and Engineering, Tongling University, Tongling, 244061, People’s Republic of China

    Xing-Xian Zhang

  3. Key Laboratory of Spatial Data Mining & Information Sharing of Ministry of Education, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, 350116, People’s Republic of China

    Ying-Ming Wang

  4. School of Information Enginnering, Fujian Business University, Fuzhou, 350506, People’s Republic of China

    Sheng-Qun Chen

Authors
  1. Xing-Xian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ying-Ming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheng-Qun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lei Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Ming Wang.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, XX., Wang, YM., Chen, SQ. et al. Discrete-valued belief structures combination and normalization using evidential reasoning rule. Appl Intell 51, 1379–1393 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01897-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01897-9

Keywords