Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some notes on betting commitment distance in evidence theory

  • Research Paper
  • Special Focus
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The distance of evidence, which represents the degree of dissimilarity between bodies of evidence, has attracted more and more interest and has found extensive uses in many realms. In this paper some notes on a widely used distance of evidence, i.e., betting commitment distance, are provided, including the arguments on the rationality of its definition, some misuses and some counter-intuitive behaviors of betting commitment distance. Several numerical examples are also provided to support and verify our arguments.

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

  1. Shafer G. A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Jousselme A L, Maupin P. On some properties of distances in evidence theory. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Theory of Belief Functions, Brest, France, 2010. 1–6

  3. Tessem B. Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence. Artif Intel, 1993, 61: 315–329

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Fixsen D, Mahler R P S. The modified Dempster-Shafer approach to classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum, 1997, 27: 96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jousselme A L, Grenier D, Bosse E. A new distance between two bodies of evidence. Inf Fusion, 2001, 2: 91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guo H W, Shi W K, Deng Y. Evaluating sensor reliability in classification problems based on evidence theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern, 2006, 36: 970–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng Y, Shi W K, Zhu Z F, et al. Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence. Decis Support Syst, 2004, 38: 489–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu W R. Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions. Artif Intel, 2006, 170: 909–924

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Ristic B, Smets P. The TBM global distance measure for the association of uncertain combat ID declarations. Inf Fusion, 2006, 7: 276–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ristic B, Smets P. Global cost of assignment in the TBM framework for association of uncertain ID reports. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2007, 11: 303–309

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Ben-Hariz S, Elouedi Z, Mellouli K. Clustering approach using belief function theory. Lect Notes Comput Sci, 2006, 4183: 162–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wen C L, Wang Y, Xu X B. Fuzzy information fusion algorithm of fault diagnosis based on similarity measure of evidence. Lect Notes Comput Sci, 2008, 5264: 506–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zouhal L M, Denoeux T. An evidence-theoretic k-NN rule with parameter optimization. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C, 1998, 28: 263–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Smets P, Kennes R. The transferable belief model. Artif Intel, 1994, 66: 191–234

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Bauer M. Approximation algorithms and decision making in the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence-an empirical study. Int J Approx Reason, 1997, 17: 217–237

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuzzolin F. A geometric approach to the theory of evidence. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C Appl Rev, 2008, 38: 522–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jousselme A L, Liu C S, Grenier D, et al. Measuring ambiguity in the evidence theory. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A, 2006, 36: 890–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Florea M C, Bosse E. Crisis management using Dempster-Shafer theory: using dissimilarity measures to characterize sources’ reliability. In: C3I in Crisis, Emergency and Consequence Management, RTO-MP-IST-086, Bucharest, Romania, 2009

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MOE KLINNS Lab, SKLMSE Lab, Institute of Integrated Automation, School of Electronics and Information Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China

    DeQiang Han & ChongZhao Han

  2. School of Electronics and Information Technology, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200240, China

    Yong Deng

  3. School of Aerospace, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710049, China

    Yi Yang

Authors
  1. DeQiang Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yong Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. ChongZhao Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to DeQiang Han.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, D., Deng, Y., Han, C. et al. Some notes on betting commitment distance in evidence theory. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 55, 558–565 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-011-4541-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-011-4541-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation