Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Jean Dezert
Chongzhao Han
Yi Yang
483
A. Jousselmes distance
Jousselme [6] proposed a distance of evidence denoted by
according to (5) using the form of Euclidean metric.
(1 , 2 ) = (1 2 ) Jac (1 2 )
(5)
For the element in Jaccards weighting matrix Jac,
Jac(, ) =
OF EVIDENCE THEORY
() = 1, () = 0
(1)
Belief function and plausibility function are defined respectively in (2) and (3):
() =
()
(2)
() =
()
(3)
0,
=
1 ( )2 ( )
() =
(4)
=
, =
1
(6)
()
(7)
where 2 is the power set of the FOD. The betting commitment distance (or Tessems distance) is computed by:
(1 , 2 ) = max {BetP1 () BetP2 ()}
(8)
measure in [6] because no proof of the strict positiveness of Jac matrix has
been published so far. We conjecture it is.
484
IV. N EW DISSIMILARITIES
(10)
(11)
define the degree of membership and degree of nonmembership of the element to the set ,
respectively, and for every , 0 ( ) + ( ) 1.
The ( ) defined in (12)
( ) = 1 ( ) ( )
(1 )
(1 )
(2 ) (2 )
(13)
=
=
..
..
.
.
( )
= {< , ( ), ( ) > }
There are several available similarity (or dissimilarity) definitions in fuzzy sets and intuitionist fuzzy sets. There exist
relationships between FST and evidence theory (DST) and
several works have pointed out these relationships already. If
the bbas can be properly transformed into FMF or intuitionist
fuzzy sets, the dissimilarity of evidence can be constructed
directly by using similarity (or dissimilarity) measures in FST.
(12)
( )
(1 )
(1 )
(2 ) (2 )
=
=
..
..
.
.
( )
(14)
( )
((1) ( ) (2) ( ))
(16)
(1 , 2 ) = 1 =1
(1) ( ) (2) ( ))
=1 (
485
1
((1) ( ) (2) ( ))
2 (1 , 2 ) =
=1
(17)
A. Example 1
For the FOD = {1 , 2 , 3 } satisfying Shafers model,
the bba 1 (.) is listed in Table I and other six bbas are
listed in Table II. We calculated the dissimilarities between
1 (.) and (.), = 2, ..., 7. See results in Figure 1.
For 1 (.), it has relatively large mass assignment value
for the focal element {2 }. Then intuitively, for (.),
= 2, ..., 7 listed in Table II, if the mass assignment for
{2 } is relative large, the dissimilarity between 1 (.) and
(.) should be relatively small. As illustrated in Figure
1, all the dissimilarities used here are rational. 1 has a
Table I
1 (.)
BBA
(18)
(2) ( ) =
(1) ( ) + 1 (1) ( )
2
(2) ( ) + 1 (2) ( )
2
(19)
BBA S
(20)
(1,2)
1
(1,2)
3 (1 , 2 ) =
( ( ) ( )) (21)
=1
(1,2)
where
(1,2)
and
2 (.)
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
Table II
(.), = 2, . . . , 7
3 (.)
0
0.8
0
0
0
0
0.2
4 (.)
0
0
0.8
0
0
0
0.2
5 (.)
0
0
0
0.8
0
0
0.2
6 (.)
0
0
0
0
0.8
0
0.2
7 (.)
0
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.2
are given by
(1)
( ) (2) ( )
(1,2) ( ) =
2
1 (1) ( ) 1 (2) ( )
(1,2) ( ) =
2
2
dT
0.9
dF
0.8
(23)
(22)
Distance Values
(1) ( ) =
1 (.)
0.1
0.8
0.1
0
0
0
0
dIF1
0.7
dIF2
0.6
dIF3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2
RESULTS
486
Figure 1.
B. Example 2
0.5
0.5
d(m1,m2)
d(m1,m3)
dT
0.7
dIF1
10
(a) d
15
20
0.5
0.5
10
(c) dF
15
20
0.5
0.5
Figure 3.
10
(e) dIF2
10
15
20
10
15
20
10
15
20
(b) d
dF
15
20
(d) dIF1
(f) dIF3
dIF2
0.6
Distance Values
dJ
0.8
dIF3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.9
d(m2,m3)
Figure 2.
10
12
14
16
18
20
487
D. Example 4
This example was proposed in [6]. Let = {1 , 2 , 3 } be
a FOD satisfying Shafers model. We consider the following
three bbas defined on :
1 ({1 }) = 1 ({2 }) = 1 ({3 }) = 1/3;
2 ({1 }) = 2 ({2 }) = 2 ({3 }) = 0.1, 2 () = 0.7;
3 ({1 }) = 3 ({2 }) = 0.1, 2 (3 ) = 0.8.
The values of the different dissimilarities between 1 (.)
and 2 (.), and between 1 (.) and 3 (.) are given in Table
III.
Table III
E XAMPLE 4: R ESULTS BASED ON DIFFERENT DISSIMILARITIES OF
EVIDENCE .
Dissimilarity types \ values
1
2
3
(1 , 2 )
0.4041
0
0.5833
0.7000
0.1167
0.3500
(1 , 3 )
0.4041
0.4667
0.6364
0.3111
0.3300
0.3300
This work has been supported by Grant for State Key Program for Basic Research of China (973) (No.2007CB311006),
Research Fund of Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Electronic
Information System Integration (No.201101Y17), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No.20100481337) and National
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.61004087).
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University,
Princeton, 1976.
[2] P. Smets, R. Kennes, The transferable belief model, Artificial Intelligence, Vol 66, No. 2, pp. 191-234, 1994.
[3] F. Smarandache, J. Dezert (Editors), Applications and Advances of
DSmT for Information Fusion, Vol 3, American Research Press, 2009.
http://www.gallup.unm.edu/smarandache/DSmT-book3.pdf.
[4] A.-L. Jousselme, P. Maupin, On some properties of distances in evidence
theory, in Workshop on Theory of Belief Functions, Brest, France, Mar
31st - Apr 2nd, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[5] D. Fixsen, R.P.S. Mahler, The Modified Dempster-Shafer Approach to
Classification, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A:
Systems and Humans, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 96104, Jan. 1997.
[6] A.-L. Jousselme, D. Grenier, E. Bosse, A new distance between two
bodies of evidence, Information Fusion, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 91101, June
2001.
488
[7] H.W. Guo, W.K. Shi, Y. Deng, Evaluating Sensor Reliability in Classification Problems Based on Evidence Theory, IEEE Trans. on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics - Part B: Cybernetics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 970981,
2006.
[8] Y. Deng, W.K. Shi, Z.F. Zhu, et al. Combining belief functions based on
distance of evidence, Decision Support Systems, vol. 38, no. 3, pp.489
- 493, 2004.
[9] W.R. Liu. Analyzing the degree of conflict among belief functions,
Artificial Intelligence, vol. 170, no. 11, pp. 909 - 924, 2006.
[10] B. Ristic, P. Smets, The TBM global distance measure for the association of uncertain combat ID declarations, Information Fusion, vol. 7,
no. 3, pp. 276284, 2006.
[11] S. Ben-Hariz, Z. Elouedi, K. Mellouli, Clustering approach using belief
function theory, In: Artificial Intelligence : Methodology, Systemes and
Applications, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Euzenat J and
Domingue J, Eds., vol. 4183, 2006, pp. 162171.
[12] B. Tessem, Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of
evidence, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 315329, June 1993.
[13] M. Bauer, Approximation algorithms and decision making in the
Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence - An empirical study, International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 17, no. 2-3, pp. 217237, 1997.
[14] L.M. Zouhal, T. Denoeux, An evidence-theoretic k-nn rule with parameter optimization, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
- Part C: Applications and Reviews, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 263 - 271, 1998.
[15] C. Wen, Y. Wang, X. Xu, Fuzzy Information Fusion Algorithm of Fault
Diagnosis Based on Similarity Measure of Evidence, in Advances in
Neural Networks, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5264.
Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2008, pp. 506515.
[16] Z.G. Liu, J. Dezert, Q. Pan, A new measure of dissimilarity between two basic belief assignments, Information Fusion, (submitted)
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00488045/en/
[17] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and control, vol. 8, pp.338-353,
1965.
[18] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets: Theory and Applications,
Physica- Verlag, Heidelberg and New York, 1999.
[19] L. Dymova, P. Sevastjanov, An interpretation of intuitionist fuzzy sets
in terms of evidence theory: Decision making aspect, Knowledge-Based
Systems, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 772-782, 2010.
[20] X.C. Liu. Entropy,distance measure and similarity measure of fuzzy
sets and their relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 305318, 1992.
[21] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Distances between intuitionist fuzzy sets,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 505-518, 2000.
[22] D.F. Li, C.T. Cheng, New similarity measures of intuitionist fuzzy sets
and application to pattern recognitions, Pattern Recognition Letters, vol.
23, no. 1-3, pp. 221-225, 2002.
[23] Z.Z. Liang, P.F. Shi, Similarity measures on intuitionist fuzzy sets,
Pattern Recognition Letters, vol.24, no.15, pp. 2687-2693, 2003.
[24] L.Z. Chen, W.K. Shi, Y. Deng, Z.F. Zhu, A new fusion approach based
on distance of evidences, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE, vol.
6A, no. 5, pp. 476482, 2005.
489