Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new combination method for multisensor conflict information

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information fusion is a very important technology which can use multisensor network data to get a better performance than single one; therefore, it is widely used in the filed of target recognition, target tracking, automatic control, decision making and so on. However, because of noise and interference, sometimes the sensors may obtain erroneous, inaccurate or heterogeneous data, which will produce the conflict information among different sensors and get the wrong result after information fusion. In this paper, based on the Dempster–Shafer (D–S) theory, we introduce how to set up the model of multisensor network information fusion. And then, we discuss the problem of conflict information fusion in the framework of evidence and several improved methods are introduced. Finally, based on Mahalanobis distance, an improved solution method is presented. The numerical simulation results prove that this new improved method can get the same result as traditional methods, beyond which it can make a reasonable decision with high conflict information. Therefore, this new improved method can be used in the filed of high noise and interference.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fang Z, Liyan H (2006) A survey of multisensor information fusion technology. J Telem Track command 27(3):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  2. Llinas J, Hall DL (1998) An introduction to multisensor data fusion. IEEE, pp I537–I540

  3. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Zadeh LA (1984) Review of books: a mathematical theory of evidence. AI Mag 10(2):235–247

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Yager RR (1987) On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules. Inf Sci 41:93–137

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Smets P (1990) The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model. IEEE Pattern Anal Mach Intell 12(5):447–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dubois D, Prade H (1988) Default reasoning and possibility theory. Artif Intell 35(z):243–257

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy CK (2000) Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts. Decis Support Syst 29:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sun Q, Ye XQ, Gu WK (2000) A new combination rules of evidence theory. Acta Electron Sin 28(8):117–119

    Google Scholar 

  10. Li BC, Wang B, Wei J, Qian ZB, Huang YQ (2002) An efficient combination rule of evidence theory. J Data Acquis Process 17(1):33–36

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liang XR, Yao PY, Liang DL (2008) Improved combination rule of evidence theory and its application in fused target recognition. Electron Optics Control 15(12):37–41

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deng Y, Shi WK, Zhu ZF, Liu Q (2004) Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence. Decis Support Syst 38(3):489–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu HY, Zhao ZG, Liu X (2008) Combination of conflict evidences in D–S theory. J Univ Electron Sci Technol China 37(5):701–704

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dempster A (1967) Upper and lower probabilities induced by multivalued mapping. Annu Math Stat 38(2):325–339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Shafer G (1976) A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Xu P, Deng Y, Su X, Mahadevan S (2013) A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data. Knowl Based Syst 46:69–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jousselme AL, Grenier D, Bosse E (2001) A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf fusion 2(1):91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang X-X, Yang F-B (2007) A kind of evidence combination method in conflict. Danjian Yu Zhidao Xuebapo 27(8):255–257

    Google Scholar 

  19. Yong-Chao Wei (2011) An improved D–S evidence combination method based on K-L distance. Telecommun Eng 51(1):191–201

    Google Scholar 

  20. McLachlan GF (1999) Mahalanobis Distance. General articlewei, pp 20–26

  21. Mitchell AFS, Krzanowski WJ (1985) The Mahalanobis distance and elliptic distributions. Biometrika 72(2):464–467

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. De Maesschalck R, Jouan-Rimbaud D, Massart DL (2000) The Mahalanobis distance[J]. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, pp 1–18

  23. Xiang S, Nie F, Zhang C (2008) Learning a Mahalanobis distance metric for data clustering and classification[J]. Pattern Recognit 41:3600–3612

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Lefevre E, Colot O, Vannoorenberghe P, de Brucq D (1998) A generic framework for resolving the conflict in the combination of belief structures. In: The 3rd International Conference on Information Fusion Paris. France, pp 182–188

  25. Yager RR (1996) On the aggregation of prioritized belief structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 26(6):708–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang Y, Fang K (1999) Introduction to multivariate statistical analysis. Science Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Key Development Program of Basic Research of China (JCKY2013604B001), the Nation Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 61301095 and No. 61201237), Nature Science Foundation of Heilongjiang Province of China (No. QC2012C069, F201408 and F201407) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. HEUCF1508).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Information and Communication Engineering, Harbin Engineering University, No. 145-1, Nantong Street, Nangang District, Harbin, 150001, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

    Yun Lin, Can Wang & Zheng Dou

  2. College of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Engineering University, No. 145-1, Nantong Street, Nangang District, Harbin, 150001, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

    Yun Lin & Chunguang Ma

  3. National Key Laboratory of Underwater Acoustic Science and Technology, Harbin Engineering University, No. 145-1, Nantong Street, Nangang District, Harbin, 150001, Heilongjiang, People’s Republic of China

    Xuefei Ma

Authors
  1. Yun Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Can Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chunguang Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zheng Dou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xuefei Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xuefei Ma.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Meantime, all the authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Wang, C., Ma, C. et al. A new combination method for multisensor conflict information. J Supercomput 72, 2874–2890 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-016-1681-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-016-1681-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation