Skip to main content
Log in

On the independence requirement in Dempster-Shafer theory for combining classifiers providing statistical evidence

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In classifier combination, the relative values of beliefs assigned to different hypotheses are more important than accurate estimation of the combined belief function representing the joint observation space. Because of this, the independence requirement in Dempster’s rule should be examined from classifier combination point of view. In this study, it is investigated whether there is a set of dependent classifiers which provides a better combined accuracy than independent classifiers when Dempster’s rule of combination is used. The analysis carried out for three different representations of statistical evidence has shown that the combination of dependent classifiers using Dempster’s rule may provide much better combined accuracies compared to independent classifiers.

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

Access this article

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

  1. Shafer G (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press

  2. Xu L, Krzyzak A, Suen CY (1992) Methods of combining multiple classifiers and their applications to handwriting recognition. IEEE Trans Syst, Man and Cybernetics 22:418–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Ani A, Deriche M (2002) A new technique for combining multiple classifiers using the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. J Art Intell Res 17:333–361

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Borotschnig H, Paletta L, Prantl M, Pinz A (1999) A comparison of probabilistic, possibilistic and evidence theoretic fusion schemes for active object recognition. Computing, Springer-Verlag 62:293–319

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Dempster AP (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. The Annalls of Mathematical Statistics 38(2):325–339

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu W, Hong J (2000) Re-investigating Dempster’s idea of evidence combination. Knowledge and Information Systems 2(2):223–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Halpern JY, Fagin R (1992) Two views of belief: belief as generalized probability and belief as evidence. Art Intell 54:275–317

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Cattaneo MEGV (2003) Combining belief functions issued from dependent sources. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on imprecise probabilities and their applications, Lugano, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  9. Raymond Ng, Subrahmanian VS (1993) Probabilistic logic programming. Information and Computation 101(2):150–201

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dekhtyar A, Subrahmanian VS (2000) Hybrid probabilistic programs. The Journal of Logic Programming 43:187–250

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu W, Bundy A (1992) The combination of different pieces of evidence using incidence calculus. Tech. Rep. RP 599, Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, pp 1–60

  12. Voorbraak F (1991) On the justification of Dempster’s rule of combination. Art Intell 48:171–197

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Breiman L (1996) Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24:123–140

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Schapire RE (2002) The boosting approach to machine learning: An overview. MSRI Workshop on Nonlinear Estimation and Classification, Berkeley, CA

  15. Franccois J, Grandvalet Y, Denaeux T, Roger JM (2003) Resample and combine: an approach to improving uncertainty representation in evidential pattern classification. Information Fusion 4:75–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lefevre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P (2002) Belief function combination and conflict management. Info Fusion 3:149–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Demirekler M, Altinccay H (2002) Plurality voting based multiple classifier systems: statistically independent with respect to dependent classifier sets. Pattern Recognition 35(11):2365–2379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhattacharya P (2000) On the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory and non-hierarchical aggregation of belief structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics 30(5):526–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fung RM, Chong CY (1986) Metaprobability and Dempster-Shafer in evidental reasoning. In L. N. Kanal and J. F. Lemmer, editors, Uncertainity in Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier Science Publishers. pp. 295–303

  20. Shafer G, Logan R (1987) Implementing Dempster’s rule for hierarchical evidence. Art Intell 33:271–298

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Smets P, Kennes R (1994) The transferrable belief model. Art Intell 66:191–234

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  22. Hegarat-Mascle SL, Bloch I, Vidal-Madjar D (1998) Introduction of neighborhood information in evidence theory and application to data fusion of radar and optical images with partial cloud cover. Patt Recogn 31(11):1811–1823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Theodoridis S, Koutroumbas K (1999) Pattern Recognition. Academic Press

  24. Luenberger DG (1973) Introduction to linear and nonlinear programming. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co

  25. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2000) Pattern Classification. John Wiley and Sons

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hakan Altınçay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Altınçay, H. On the independence requirement in Dempster-Shafer theory for combining classifiers providing statistical evidence. Appl Intell 25, 73–90 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-006-8867-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-006-8867-y

Keywords

Navigation