Geometric Interpretations of Conflict: A Viewpoint

Recently, several works have focused on the study of conflict among belief functions with a geometrical approach. In such framework, a corner stone is to endow the set of belief functions with an appropriated metric, and to consider that distant belief functions are more conflicting than neighboring ones. This article discusses such approaches, caveats some of their difficulties and highlights ways to circumvent them.

[1]  Ma Liyao,et al.  A dissimilarity measure based on singular value and its application in incremental discounting , 2013, Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[2]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Statistical reasoning with set-valued information: Ontic vs. epistemic views , 2014, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[3]  Arthur P. Dempster,et al.  Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping , 1967, Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions.

[4]  Hong-Zhong Huang,et al.  A novel method for measuring the dissimilarity degree between two pieces of evidence in Dempster-Shafer evidence theory , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance, and Safety Engineering (QR2MSE).

[5]  Christophe Osswald,et al.  Conflict measure for the discounting operation on belief functions , 2008, 2008 11th International Conference on Information Fusion.

[6]  Babak Nadjar Araabi,et al.  Information-based dissimilarity assessment in Dempster-Shafer theory , 2013, Knowl. Based Syst..

[7]  Milan Daniel.  Conflicts within and between Belief Functions , 2010, IPMU.

[8]  Audun Jøsang,et al.  DEMPSTER’S RULE AS SEEN BY LITTLE COLORED BALLS , 2012, Comput. Intell..

[9]  Anne-Laure Jousselme,et al.  Distances in evidence theory: Comprehensive survey and generalizations , 2012, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[10]  Eyke Hüllermeier,et al.  Computational Intelligence for Knowledge-Based Systems Design, 13th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty, IPMU 2010, Dortmund, Germany, June 28 - July 2, 2010. Proceedings , 2010, IPMU.

[11]  Éloi Bossé,et al.  A new distance between two bodies of evidence , 2001, Inf. Fusion.

[12]  Prakash P. Shenoy,et al.  On the plausibility transformation method for translating belief function models to probability models , 2006, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[13]  Fabio Cuzzolin,et al.  A Geometric Approach to the Theory of Evidence , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[14]  Philippe Smets,et al.  Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation , 2005, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[15]  N. Pal,et al.  QUANTIFICATION OF CONFLICT IN DEMPSTER-SHAFER FRAMEWORK: A NEW APPROACH , 1996 .

[16]  Arnaud Martin.  About Conflict in the Theory of Belief Functions , 2012, Belief Functions.

[17]  Johan Schubert.  The Internal Conflict of a Belief Function , 2012, Belief Functions.

[18]  Fabio Cuzzolin.  Two New Bayesian Approximations of Belief Functions Based on Convex Geometry , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[19]  Fabio Cuzzolin.  Geometry of Dempster's rule of combination , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[20]  Thomas Burger,et al.  Toward an Axiomatic Definition of Conflict Between Belief Functions , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics.

[21]  Weiru Liu,et al.  Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions , 2006, Artif. Intell..