A new weighting factor in combining belief function

Dempster-Shafer evidence theory has been widely used in various applications. However, to solve the problem of counter-intuitive outcomes by using classical Dempster-Shafer combination rule is still an open issue while fusing the conflicting evidences. Many approaches based on discounted evidence an...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 12; no. 5; p. e0177695
Main Authors Zhou, Deyun, Pan, Qian, Chhipi-Shrestha, Gyan, Li, Xiaoyang, Zhang, Kun, Hewage, Kasun, Sadiq, Rehan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 25.05.2017
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0177695

Cover

More Information
Summary:Dempster-Shafer evidence theory has been widely used in various applications. However, to solve the problem of counter-intuitive outcomes by using classical Dempster-Shafer combination rule is still an open issue while fusing the conflicting evidences. Many approaches based on discounted evidence and weighted average evidence have been investigated and have made significant improvements. Nevertheless, all of these approaches have inherent flaws. In this paper, a new weighting factor is proposed to address this problem. First, a modified dissimilarity measurement is proposed which is characterized by both distance and conflict between evidences. Second, a measurement of information volume of each evidence based on Deng entropy is introduced. Then two kinds of weight derived from aforementioned measurement are combined to obtain a new weighting factor and a weighted average method based on the new weighting factor is proposed. Numerical examples are used to illustrate the validity and effectiveness of the proposed method. In the end, the new method is applied to a real-life application of river water quality monitoring, which effectively identify the major land use activities contributing to river pollution.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Conceptualization: QP.Data curation: GC-S.Formal analysis: QP GC-S.Funding acquisition: KZ KH.Investigation: QP GC-S.Methodology: QP.Project administration: DZ RS.Resources: DZ RS.Software: QP XL.Supervision: RS.Validation: DZ RS.Visualization: QP GC-S.Writing – original draft: QP.Writing – review & editing: GC-S RS.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0177695