In this paper, the combination of unreliable evidence sources is considered based on multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) model in intuitionistic fuzzy environment. In the intuitionistic fuzzy MCDM framework, evidence sources can be evaluated based on the ranking method between intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. A generalized discounting operation on unreliable evidence bodies is firstly proposed to deal with uncertain reliability factors. Then we mainly investigate the evaluation evidence reliability factors without prior knowledge. Our proposed evaluation method is based on the principle of self-assessment. It is implemented by the probabilistic comparison between intuitionistic fuzzy values. Our proposed evaluation method is independent to the dissimilarity measure between basic probability assignments represented by an evidential distance. Numerical examples demonstrate the performance of our proposed reliability evaluation method.
JousselmeA.-L., GrenierD. and BosseE., A new distance between two bodies of evidence, Information Fusion2(2) (2001), 91–101.
2.
DempsterA.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multiple valued mapping, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics38 (1967), 325–339.
3.
LiB. and HeW., Intuitionistic fuzzy PRI-AND and PRI-OR aggregation operators, Information Fusion14 (2013), 450–459.
4.
MurphyC.K., Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts, Decision Support Systems29(1) (2000), 1–9.
5.
DuboisD. and PradeH., On the unicity of Dempster rule of combination, International Journal of Intelligent Systems1 (1986), 133–142.
6.
LiD.-F., The GOWA operator based approach to multiattribute decision making using intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Mathematical and Computer Modelling53 (2011), 1182–1196.
7.
HongD.H. and ChoiC.H., Multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems114 (2000), 103–113.
8.
KlawonnF. and SchweckeE., On the axiomatic justification of Dempster’s rule of combination, International Journal of Intelligent Systems7(5) (1992), 469–478.
9.
LefevreE., ColotO. and VannoorenbergheP., Belief functions combination and conflict management, Information Fusion3(2) (2002), 149–162.
10.
PichonF. and DenoeuxT., The unnormalized Dempster’s rule of combination: A new justification from the Least Commitment Principle and some extensions, Journal of Automated Reasoning45(1) (2010), 61–87.
11.
SmarandacheF. and DezertJ., Applications and Advances of DSmT for Information Fusion, vol. 3, American Research Press, Rehoboth, 2009, pp. 4–32.
12.
BeliakovG., BustinceH., GoswamiD.P., MukherjeeU.K. and PalN.R., On averaging operators for Atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Information Sciences181 (2011), 1116–1124.
13.
FacchinettiG., RicciR. and MuzzioliS., Note on ranking fuzzy triangular numbers, International Journal of Intelligent Systems13 (1998), 613–622.
14.
ShaferG., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1976.
15.
ShaferG., Perspectives on the theory and practice of belief functions, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning4(5–6) (1990), 323–362.
16.
GuoH., ShiW. and DengY., Evaluating sensor reliability in classification problems based on evidence theory, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B: Cybernetics36(5) (2006), 970–981.
17.
KleinJ. and ColotO., Automatic discounting rate computation using a dissent criterion, in: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Theory of Belief Functions, Brest, France, 2010, pp. 1–6.
18.
SchubertJ., Conflict management in Dempster–Shafer theory using the degree of falsity, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning52(3) (2011), 449–460.
19.
AtanassovK.T., Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems20(1) (1986), 87–96.
20.
AtanassovK.T., On intuitionistic fuzzy sets theory, Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2012.
21.
ZadehL.A., Fuzzy sets, Information and Control8 (1965), 338–353.
22.
ZadehL.A., A simple view of the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination, AI Magazine2 (1986), 85–90.
23.
DymovaL. and SevastjanovP., An interpretation of intuitionistic fuzzy sets in terms of evidence theory: Decision making aspect, Knowledge-Based Systems23 (2010), 772–782.
24.
ChenL.-H., HungC.-C. and TuC.-C., Considering the decision maker’s attitudinal character to solve multi-criteria decision-making problems in an intuitionistic fuzzy environment, Knowledge-Based Systems36 (2012), 129–138.
25.
FloreaM.C., JousselmeA.-L. and BosseE., Robust combination rules for evidence theory, Information Fusion10(2) (2009), 183–197.
26.
SmetsP., Data fusion in the transferable belief model, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information Fusion, Paris, France, 2000, pp. PS21–PS33.
27.
HaenniR., Shedding new light on Zadeh’s criticism of Dempster’s rule of combination, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Fusion, Philadelphia, USA, IEEE,Piscataway, NJ, 2005, pp. 879–884.
28.
YagerR.R., On the Dempster–Shafer framework and new combination rules, Information Science41(2) (1987), 93–137.
29.
ChenS.M. and TanJ.M., Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision-making problems based on vague set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems67 (1994), 163–172.
30.
DengY., ShiW.K., ZhuZ.F. and LiuQ., Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence, Decision Support Systems38(3) (2004), 489–493.
31.
NakaharaY., User oriented ranking criteria and its application to fuzzy mathematical programming problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems94 (1998), 275–276.
32.
NakaharaY., SasakiM. and GenM., On the linear programming problems with interval coefficients, Computers & Industrial Engineering23 (1992), 301–304.
33.
YangY., HanD. and HanC., Discounted combination of unreliable evidence using degree of disagreement, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning54 (2013), 1197–1216.
34.
ElouediZ., MellouliK. and SmetsP., Assessing sensor reliability for multisensor data fusion within the transferable belief model, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B: Cyetics34(4) (2004), 782–787.
35.
LiuZ.-g., DezertJ., PanQ. and MercierG., Combination of sources of evidence with different discounting factors based on a new dissimilarity measure, Decision Support Systems52 (2011), 133–141.
36.
LiuZ.-g., PanQ., DezertJ. and MartinA., Adaptive imputation of missing values for incomplete pattern recognition, Pattern Recognition52 (2016), 85–95.
