Dempster-Shafer theory (DST) of evidence has wide application prospect in the fields of information aggregation and decision analysis. To solve the issues of interval evidence combination and normalization, we have reinvestigated the methods provided for interval evidence combination within the frameworks of DST and evidential reasoning (ER) approach, respectively, and pointed out the shortcomings of existing methods. A more general interval evidence combination approach based on the ER rule is constructed. Numerical examples are provided to indicate that the proposed method not only suitable to the conflict-free interval evidence combination, but also to the conflicting interval evidence combination, and interval evidence specificity can be kept intact in the interval evidence combination process. Moreover, the interval evidence combination methods based on DST or ER are special cases of the proposed method in some cases.
DumpsterA.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, Annals of Mathematical Statistics38 (1967)325–339.
2.
ShaferG., A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1976.
3.
SrivastavaR.P. and LiuL., Applications of belief functions in business decisions: A review, Information Systems Frontiers5 (2003), 359–378.
4.
DouZ., SunY. and LinY., The optimization model of target recognition based on wireless sensor network, Journal of Biological Chemistry7 (2014), 2885–2888.
5.
EynonM., OckerD. and HallD., An expert system for multi-criteria decision making using Dumpster Shafer theory, Expert Systems with Applications20 (2001), 357–367.
6.
WuW.Z., ZhangM., et al., Knowledge reduction in random information systems via Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence, Information Sciences174 (2005), 143–164.
7.
XieX.J. and QinX.L., A novel incremental attribute reduction approach for dynamic incomplete decision systems, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning93 (2018), 443–462.
8.
CaiM.J., LiQ.G. and MaJ.M., Knowledge reduction of dynamic covering decision information systems caused by variations of attribute values, International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics8 (2017), 1131–1144.
9.
Morente-MolineraJ.A., PérezI.J., et al., Creating knowledge databases for storing and sharing people knowledge automatically using group decision making and fuzzy ontologies, Information Sciences328 (2016), 418–434.
10.
TelmoudiA. and ChakharS., Data fusion application from evidential databases as a support for decision making, Information and Software Technology46 (2004), 547–555.
11.
AggarwalP., BhattD., et al., Dempster Shafer neural network algorithm for land vehicle navigation application, Information Sciences253 (2013), 26–33.
12.
FrikhaA., On the use of a multi-criteria approach for reliability estimation in belief function theory, Information Fusion18 (2014), 20–32.
13.
LiuZ.G., PanQ. and DezertJ., Evidential classifier for imprecise data based on belief functions, Knowledge-Based Systems52 (2013), 246–257.
14.
XuP.D., DengY., et al., A new method to determine basic probability assignment from training data, Knowledge-Based Systems46 (2013), 69–80.
15.
WangY.M. and YangJ.B., Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach, European Journal of Operational Research174 (2006), 1885–1913.
16.
YangJ.B. and SenP., A general multi-level evaluation process for hybrid MADM with uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics24 (1994), 1458–1473.
17.
YangJ.B. and SinghM.G., An evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision making with uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics24 (1994), 1–18.
18.
EsmailB.A. and GenelettiD., Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: A review of 20 years of applications, Methods in Ecology and Evolution9 (2018), 42–53.
19.
Morente-MolineraJ.A., KouG., et al., Analysing discussions in social networks using group decision making methods and sentiment analysis, Information Sciences447 (2018), 157–168.
20.
PérezI.J., CabrerizoF.J., et al., On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems, Information Sciences459 (2018), 20–35.
21.
BeynonM.J., D-S/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty, European Journal of Operational Research140 (2002), 148–164.
22.
BeynonM.J., An investigation of the role of scale values in the D-S/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis11 (2002), 327–343.
23.
YangJ.B., Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multi attribute decision analysis under uncertainties, European Journal of Operational Research131 (2001), 31–61.
24.
YangJ.B. and XuD.L., On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans32 (2002), 289–304.
25.
YangJ.B. and XuD.L., Nonlinear information aggregation via evidential reasoning in multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainty, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans32 (2002), 376–393.
26.
YangJ.B., XuD.L. and ChinK.S., The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties, European Journal of Operational Research171 (2006), 309–343.
27.
ZhangY.J., DengX.Y, et al., Assessment of E-Commerce security using AHP and evidential reasoning, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 3611–3623.
28.
AshouriM., HaghighatF., et al., Development of building energy saving advisory: A data mining approach, Energy and Buildings172 (2018), 139–151.
29.
ChengY., ChenK., et al., Data and knowledge mining with big data towards smart production, Journal of Industrial Information Integration9 (2018), 1–13.
30.
WangR., JiW., et al., Review on mining data from multiple data sources, Pattern Recognition Letters109 (2018), 120–128.
31.
Bazargan-LariM.R., An evidential reasoning approach to optimal monitoring of drinking water distribution systems for detecting deliberate contamination events, Journal of Cleaner Production78 (2014), 1–14.
32.
LiuJ., YangJ.B., et al., Fuzzy rule-based evidential reasoning approach for safety analysis, International Journal of General Systems33 (2004), 183–204.
33.
ZhangL., XuD.L., et al., An improved Dempster-Shafer approach to construction safety risk perception, Knowledge-Based Systems132 (2017), 30–46.
34.
MonneyP.A., Analyzing linear regression models with hints and the Dempster-Shafer theory, International Journal of Intelligent Systems18 (2003), 5–29.
35.
Petit-RenaudS. and DenoeuxT., Nonparametric regression analysis of uncertain and imprecise data using belief functions, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning35 (2004), 1–28.
36.
LeeE.S. and ZhuQ., An interval Dempster-Shafer approach, Computers and Mathematics with Applications24 (1992), 89–95.
37.
DenoeuxT., Reasoning with imprecise belief structures, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning20 (1999), 79–111.
38.
DenoeuxT., Modelling vague belief using fuzzy-valued belief structures, Fuzzy Sets and Systems116 (2000), 167–199.
39.
YagerR.R., Dempster-Shafer belief structures with interval valued focal weights, International Journal of Intelligent Systems16 (2001), 497–512.
40.
WangY.M., YangJ.B., et al., On the combination and normalization of interval-valued belief structures, Information Sciences177 (2007), 1230–1247.
41.
WangY.M., YangJ.B., et al., The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees, European Journal of Operational Research175 (2006), 35–66.
42.
SevastianovP., DymovaL. and BartosiewiczP., A framework for rule-base evidential reasoning in the interval setting applied to diagnosing type 2 diabetes, Expert Systems with Applications39 (2012), 4190–4200.
43.
SongY.F. and WangX.D., et al., Combination of interval-valued belief structures based on intuitionistic fuzzy set, Knowledge-Based Systems67 (2014), 61–70.
44.
ChenS.Q. and WangY.M., Conflicting evidence combination of interval-valued belief structures, Systems Engineering – Theory & Practice34 (2014), 256–261.
45.
YangJ.B. and XuD.L., Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination, Artificial Intelligence205 (2013), 1–29.
46.
ZhangX.X., WangY.M., et al., Gini coefficient-based evidential reasoning approach with unknown evidence weights, Computers & Industrial Engineering124 (2018), 157–166.
47.
YuW.Y, ZhangZ., et al., Extended TODIM for multi-criteria group decision making based on unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets, Computers & Industrial Engineering114 (2017), 316–328.
48.
ZhangZ., GuoC.H and MartinezL., Managing multigranular linguistic distribution assessments in large-scale multiattribute group decision making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems47 (2017), 3063–3076.
49.
ZhangZ. and GuoC.H., Deriving priority weights from intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations under group decision-making settings, Journal of the Operational Research Society68 (2017), 1582–1599.
50.
ZhangZ., KouX.Y., et al., On priority weights and consistency for incomplete hesitant fuzzy preference relations, Knowledge-Based Systems143 (2018), 115–126.
