Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Evidential Reasoning (ER) approach is a general approach for analyzing multiple criteria decision problems under various types of uncertainty using a unified framework—belief structure. In this paper, the ER approach is surveyed from two aspects: theoretical development and applications. After a brief outline of its development and extension over a twenty year period, the ER approach is outlined with a focus on the links among its various developments. Future research directions in the area are also explored in the survey.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amor, S. B., Jabeur, K., & Martel, J. M. (2007). Multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(3), 1506–1515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Augusto, J. C., Liu, J., McCullagh, P., Wang, H., & Yang, J. B. (2008). Management of uncertainty and spatio-temporal aspects for monitoring and diagnosis in a smart home. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 1(4), 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H. (2005). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beynon, M., Curry, B., & Morgan, P. (2000). The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling. Omega, 28, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. P., & Mareshal, B. (1990). The PROMETHEE methods for MCDM; the PROMCALC, GAIA and bank adviser software. In C. A. B. E. Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 253–276). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buede, D. M., & Girardi, P. (1997). A target identification comparison of Bayesian and Dempster-Shafer multisensor fusion. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 27(5), 569–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calzada, A., Liu, J., Rodriguez, R. M., & Martinez, L. (2010). A belief linguistic rule based inference methodology for handling decision making problem in qualitative nature. In Proceeding of FLINS (Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Technologies in Nuclear Science) Conference on Foundations and Applications of Computational Intelligence, Chengdu, China. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, K. S., Yang, J. B., Lam, J., & Guo, M. (2009). An evidential reasoning-interval based method for new product design assessment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(1), 142–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Y., Chan, F. T. S., Wu, Y., & Wang, D. (2011). A new linguistic MCDM method based on multiple-criterion data fusion. Expert Systems With Applications, 38(6), 6985–6993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denoeux, T. (2008). Conjunctive and disjunctive combination of belief functions induced by nondistinct bodies of evidence. Artificial Intelligence, 172(2–3), 234–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Y., & Deer, P. (2008). Exploring evidential reasoning in multicriteria decision making under uncertainty. International Journal of Intelligent Systems Technologies and Applications, 4(3–4), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, A., & Rózsa, P. (2001). Data perturbations of matrices of pairwise comparisons. Annals of Operation Research, 101, 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira, J., Greco, S., & Ehrgott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Boston: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1988). Decision theory an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ellis Horwood: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1989). Readings in decision analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S., & Xu, D. L. (2005). Comparison study of multi-attribute decision analysis tools. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13(2–3), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, C., & Yang, S. L. (2010). The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 206(3), 601–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales, C., & Jaffray, J. Y. (1998). Imprecise sampling and direct decision making. Annals of Operation Research, 80, 207–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, G., & Hardaker, G. (1999). Contractor evaluation in the aerospace industry: using the evidential reasoning approach. Journal of Research in Marketing & Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 162–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., Slowinski, R., & Zanakis, S. (2011). Global investing risk: a case study of knowledge assessment via rough sets. Annals of Operation Research, 185(1), 105–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guitouni, A., Martel, J. M., Bélanger, M., & Hunter, C. (2008). Multiple criteria courses of action selection. Military Operations Research, 13(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, M., Yang, J. B., Chin, K. S., & Wang, H. W. (2007). Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(3), 1294–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, M., Yang, J. B., Chin, K. S., & Wang, H. W. (2009). Evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under both fuzzy and interval uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 17(3), 683–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilhorst, C., Ribbers, P., Heck, E. V., & Smits, M. (2008). Using Dempster-Shafer theory and real options theory to assess competing strategies for implementing IT infrastructures: a case study. Decision Support Systems, 46(1), 344–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, C. H., Si, X. S., & Yang, J. B. (2010). System reliability prediction model based on evidential reasoning algorithm with nonlinear optimization. Expert Systems With Applications, 37(3), 2550–2562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, V. N., Nakamori, Y., Ho, T. B., & Murai, T. (2006). Multiple-attribute decision making under uncertainty: the evidential reasoning approach revisited. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 36(4), 804–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iourinski, D., & Ramalingam, S. (2005). Using Dempster Shafer theory to aggregate usability study data. In Third international conference on information technology and applications (ICITA’05).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, F. V. (1997). Introduction to Bayesian networks. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabak, Ö., & Ruan, D. (2010). A cumulative belief degree-based approach for missing values in nuclear safeguards evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/TKDE.2010.60.

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, G. L., Xu, D. L., Liu, X. B., & Yang, J. B. (2009). Applying a belief rule-base inference methodology to a guideline-based clinical decision support system. Expert Systems, 26(5), 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, H. (2007). Hierarchical risk assessment of water supply systems. Civil and building engineering. Loughborough, Loughborough University, PhD.

  • Liu, J., Wang, Y. M., & Martinez, L. (2008a). Extended belief rule-based inference framework. In Proceedings of 2008 international conference on intelligent systems and knowledge engineering (ISKE2008), Xiamen, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Yang, J. B., Ruan, D., Martinez, L., & Wang, J. (2008b). Self-tuning of fuzzy belief rule bases for engineering system safety analysis. Annals of Operation Research, 163(1), 143–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Martinez, L., Ruan, D., & Wang, H. (2009a). Generating consistent fuzzy belief rule base from sample data. In Proceeding of the 4th international conference on intelligent systems & knowledge engineering (ISKE2009), Hasselt, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J., Ruan, D., Wang, H., & Martinez, L. (2009b). Improving IAEA safeguards evaluation through enhanced belief rule-based inference methodology. International Journal of Nuclear Knowledge Management, 3(3), 312–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X. B., Zhou, M., & Yang, J. B. (2010). Evidential Reasoning approach for MADA under group and fuzzy decision environment. In The 2nd international symposium on intelligent decision technologies (IDT-10), Baltimore, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, L., Liu, J., Ruan, D., & Yang, J. B. (2007). Dealing with heterogeneous information in engineering evaluation processes. Information Sciences, 177, 1533–1542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, R., & Watada, J. (2009). Logical method for logical operations based on evidential reasoning. International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Soft Data Paradigms, 12, 151–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishisato, S., & Ahn, H. (1995). When not to analyze data: decision making on missing responses in dual scaling. Annals of Operation Research, 55, 361–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1984). A theory of requisite decision models. London School of Economics and Political Science, Decision Analysis Unit.

  • Ren, J., Wang, J., Jenkinson, I., Xu, D. L., & Yang, J. B. (2009a). An offshore risk analysis method using fuzzy Bayesian network. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 131(4). Available from http://link.aip.org/link/?JOM/131/041101.

  • Ren, J., Yusuf, Y. Y., & Burns, N. D. (2009b). A decision-support framework for agile enterprise partnering. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41(1–2), 180–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1990). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELEC-TRE methods. In C. A. B. E. Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 155–183). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1996). Multi-criteria modelling for decision aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruan, D., Carchon, R., Meer, K. V. D., Liu, J., Wang, H., & Martinez, L. (2009). Belief rule-based inference methodology to improve nuclear safeguards information evaluation. In Proceeding of the 28th North America fuzzy information processing conference associated with IEEE (NAFIPS09), Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1988). The analytic hierarchy process. University of Pittsburgh.

  • Savage, S. L. (2009). The flaw of averages. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, G. A. (1976). Mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siow, C. H. R., Yang, J. B., & Dale, B. G. (2001). A new modelling framework for organisational self-assessment: development and application. Quality Management Journal, 8(4), 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonmez, M., Yang, J. B., & Holt, G. D. (2001). Addressing the contractor selection problem using an evidential reasoning approach. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8(3), 198–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonmez, M., Graham, G., Yang, J. B., & Holt, G. D. (2002). Applying evidential reasoning to pre-qualifying construction contractors. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. (2005). Dealing with uncertainties in MCDA. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys (pp. 445–470). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanadtang, P., Park, D., & Hanaoka, S. (2005). Incorporating uncertain and incomplete subjective judgments into the evaluation procedure of transportation demand management alternatives. Transportation, 32(6), 603–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., Sodenkamp, M. A., & Suhl, L. (2010). A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement. Annals of Operation Research, 181(1), 393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methodologies: a comparative study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukiàs, A. (2007). On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective. Annals of Operation Research, 154(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision-aid. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (1997). A subjective methodology for safety analysis of safety requirements specifications. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 5, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2007). A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression analysis in modelling bridge risks. Expert Systems With Applications, 32, 336–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Yang, J. B. (2001). A subjective safety based decision making approach for evaluation of safety requirements specifications in software development. International Journal of Reliability, Quality, and Safety Engineering, 8(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1995). Safety analysis and synthesis using fuzzy sets and evidential reasoning. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety, 47(2), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1996). Multi-person and multi-attribute design evaluations using evidential reasoning based on subjective safety and cost analysis. Reliability Engineering & Systems Safety, 52, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2006b). The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees. European Journal of Operational Research, 175(1), 35–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2006a). Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(3), 1885–1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2007). On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures. Information Sciences, 177.

  • Wang, Y. M., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., & Chin, K. S. (2009). Consumer preference prediction by using a hybrid evidential reasoning and belief rule-based methodology. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(4), 8421–8430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X. L., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., Wang, J., Ren, J., & Yu, S. (2008). Ship selection using a multiple criteria synthesis approach. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 13, 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L. (2009). Assessment of nuclear waste repository options using the ER approach. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 8(3).

  • Xu, D. L. (2010). A Web based assessment tool via the evidential reasoning approach. In D. Ruan (Ed.), Computational intelligence in complex decision systems. Paris: Atlantis Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., & Foster, C. (2009). Prioritising product groups for carbon labelling. In 20th international conference on multiple criteria decision making, Chengdu, China.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., & Yang, J. B. (2001). Introduction to multi-criteria decision making and the evidential reasoning approach. (Working Paper Series, Paper No.: 0106), ISBN: 1-86115-111-X.

  • Xu, D. L., & Yang, J. B. (2003). Intelligent decision system for self-assessment. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12, 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., & Yang, J. B. (2005). An intelligent decision system based on the evidential reasoning approach and its applications. Journal of Telecommunications and Information Technology, 3, 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., McCarthy, G., & Yang, J. B. (2006a). Intelligent decision system and its application in business innovation self assessment. Decision Support Systems, 42, 664–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., & Wang, Y. M. (2006b). The ER approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 174(3), 1914–1943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., Liu, J., Yang, J. B., Liu, G. P., Wang, J., Jenkinson, I., & Ren, J. (2007). Inference and learning methodology of belief-rule-based expert system for pipeline leak detection. Expert Systems With Applications, 32(1), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., & Liu, X. B. (2008). Handling uncertain and qualitative information in impact assessment—applications of IDS in policy making support. In H. Ruan, F. Hardeman, & K. van der Meer (Eds.), Intelligent decision and policy making support systems. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. R. (1987). On the Dempster-Shafer framework and new combination rules. Information Sciences, 41(2), 93–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B. (2001). Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 131(1), 31–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, S. L., & Fu, C. (2009). Constructing confidence belief functions from one expert. Expert Systems With Applications, 36(4), 8537–8548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1994a). A general multi-level evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(10), 1458–1473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1994b). Evidential reasoning based hierarchical analysis for design selection of ship retro-fit options. In J. S. Gero & F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in design, The Netherlands (pp. 327–344). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1996). Interactive tradeoff analysis and preference modelling for preliminary multiobjective ship design. Systems Analysis, Modelling, Simulation, 26, 25–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Sen, P. (1997). Multiple attribute design evaluation of large engineering products using the evidential reasoning approach. Journal of Engineering Design, 8(3), 211–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Singh, M. G. (1994). An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 24(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2002a). On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 32(3), 289–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (2002b). Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 32(3), 376–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., Dale, B. G., & Siow, C. H. R. (2001). Self-assessment of excellence: an application of the evidential reasoning approach. International Journal of Production Research, 39(16), 3789–3812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., Liu, J., Wang, J., Sii, H. S., & Wang, H. W. (2006a). A belief rule-base inference methodology using the evidential reasoning approach—RIMER. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 36(2), 268–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., Wang, Y. M., Xu, D. L., & Chin, K. S. (2006b). The evidential reasoning approach for MCDA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1), 309–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., Liu, J., Xu, D. L., Wang, J., & Wang, H. W. (2007). Optimization models for training belief rule based systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A. Systems and Humans, 37(4), 569–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z. L., Wang, J., Bonsall, S., & Fang, Q. G. (2009). Use of fuzzy evidential reasoning in maritime security assessment. Risk Analysis, 29(1), 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., Xie, X. L., & Maddulapalli, A. K. (2011). Multicriteria evidential reasoning decision modelling and analysis—prioritising voices of customer. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(9), 1638–1654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, R., & Zheng, J. (2010). A model of intelligent building energy management for the indoor environment. Intelligent Buildings International, 2(1), 72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, X., & Zhou, X. (2009). Logistics service supplier assessment base on the ER approach. In Proceeding of 2009 international conference on electronic commerce and business intelligence, Beijing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Z. J., Yang, J. B., & Xu, D. L. (1989). A hierarchical analysis model for multiobjective decision making. In Analysis, design and evaluation of man-machine system, selected papers from the 4th IFAC/IFIP/ IFORS/IEA conference in 1989 (Ed), Xian, China (pp. 13–18). Pergamon, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, Z. J., Hu, C. H., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., Chen, M. Y., & Zhou, D. H. (2010). A sequential learning algorithm for online constructing belief rule based systems. Expert Systems With Applications, 37, 1790–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK

    Dong-Ling Xu

Authors
  1. Dong-Ling Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong-Ling Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Xu, DL. An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis. Ann Oper Res 195, 163–187 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-011-0945-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-011-0945-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation