Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Robust Dempster-Shafer Evidence Fusion with Chaos-Conflict Measurement and Historical-Experience Weighting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Learned source reliability lifts Dempster-Shafer fusion to 85.78 F1

desk verdict A genuinely new adaptive DST fusion framework with a solid design, but the headline empirical win over boosting is an artifact of running XGBoost/LightGBM/CatBoost with only three trees, and the paper's advertised Property 5 is false. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.13108 v1 pith:KGTOATYC submitted 2026-08-13 cs.AI

Huiyu Li , Weibo Liu , Xinru Xu , Dongchen Gao , Meng Zhang , Junhua Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords Dempster-Shafertheoryevidencefusionconflictmeasurementhistorical-experienceweightingregretspectralclusteringbeliefintervalsuncertainty
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the two standard failure modes of Dempster-Shafer evidence fusion—uncontrolled conflict between sources, and sources whose reliability changes across contexts—can be fixed in one framework. The proposed solution couples a chaos-conflict measurement that scores disagreement and internal vagueness in a single number with a historical-experience weighting scheme that learns, from past fusion mistakes, which sources to trust in which context. A conflict-adaptive hybrid combination rule then blends uncertainty-preserving combination with weighted consensus, and a belief-interval decision rule turns the fused masses into a class label without discarding epistemic uncertainty. If the claims hold, multi-source decision systems gain a principled way to discount unreliable evidence while keeping genuine ignorance visible.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chaos-conflict measurement (CCM), built from an evidence association measure $k(m_i,m_j)$ and a similarity $S(m_i,m_j)=\frac{k(m_i,m_j)}{1-k(m_i,m_j)+k(m_i,m_i)k(m_j,m_j)}$ that jointly penalizes disagreement and non-specific mass on multi-element focal elements. The second mechanism is historical-experience weighting: spectral clustering partitions past decisions into contexts, regret theory assigns rejoice and regret scores to each evidence source whenever the fused decision is wrong, and softmax normalization yields context-specific reliability weights. These feed a hybrid combination rule that mixes a refined Dubois uncertainty-preserving term with the historically weighted consensus evidence, with the mixing controlled by the global chaos-conflict degree via $e^{-\hat{K}}$; the belief-interval decision rule then scores singletons by combining belief bounds with interval stability.

What would settle it

Compute $S(m_i,m_j)$ for two identical BPAs concentrated on a singleton, then refine the frame by splitting that singleton into a two-element set and recompute $S$; under Eq. 14 the value drops from 1 to about 0.31, directly contradicting Property 5's claim of invariance under refinement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that its unified evidence reasoning framework—chaos-conflict measurement, historical-experience weighting, hybrid combination, and belief-interval decision—delivers the most accurate and best-calibrated fusion results across 16 real-world datasets, with an average F1 of 85.78 and mean AUC of 93.30, beating eight DST-based baselines and three gradient boosting methods. The central discovery is that conflict and non-specificity, usually treated as separate quantities, can be folded into one scalar measure (the chaos-conflict measurement) with five claimed formal properties, and that long-term source reliability can be learned per context through regret-rejoice scoring over past fusion errors. The authors further claim that each component contributes, with historical-experience weighting producing the largest ablation loss (a 5.03% AUC drop), and that the framework stays competitive under feature noise, label noise, varying evidence counts, and replacement of the base evidence generator.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chaos-conflict similarity measure satisfies five stated properties, including refinement insensitivity; that last property, as stated, fails on a simple example, so the measure's advertised consistency as a theoretical foundation is not actually established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DST fusion becomes context-adaptive: a source that is unreliable in one cluster can be downweighted while still trusted in another, addressing the informative-but-occasionally-conflicting failure mode.
  • High-conflict scenarios stop forcing artificial consensus: the hybrid rule pushes mass toward multi-element focal elements exactly when global conflict is high, preserving uncertainty into the decision stage.
  • The belief-interval decision rule allows deterministic classification from masses with non-singleton focal elements, so epistemic uncertainty does not have to be discarded or forcibly redistributed.
  • Historical regret-rejoice credit assignment gives DST methods a principled training phase, shrinking the gap with gradient-boosting ensembles on imbalanced and overlapping benchmarks.
  • The single scalar global chaos-conflict degree controls the fusion rule with no manual mixture-coefficient tuning, simplifying deployment on new data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework's empirical gains may not depend on all five advertised properties of the similarity measure; if refinement insensitivity fails, the CCM could be replaced by a variant that drops or fixes that property without necessarily losing the reported ranking across these 16 datasets.
  • The regret-rejoice credit assignment is generic enough to be ported to other combination rules (e.g., cautious or contextual discounting) and to other BPA generators, so the historical-weighting module may be the transferable core rather than the CCM itself.
  • Because the decision rule deliberately leaves non-specific mass unassigned, the framework could be extended to active-learning or deferral settings where the system abstains when the belief interval is wide, a behavior not explored in the paper.
  • One testable extension is to replace spectral clustering with online or stream clustering for nonstationary contexts, and to compare whether the learned weights track reliability drift better than the static offline partition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Dempster-Shafer evidence fusion framework with three components: a chaos-conflict measurement (CCM) that jointly quantifies inter-evidence conflict and intra-evidence non-specificity, a historical-experience weighting scheme that uses spectral clustering and regret theory to learn context-dependent source weights, and a hybrid combination rule that mixes a Dubois-style uncertainty-preserving term with a historical-weight consensus term. An offline-training/online-inference design is described, and experiments on 16 UCI/NIH datasets with decision-tree evidence sources report an average F1 of 85.78 and mean AUC of 93.30, claiming superiority over eight DST baselines and three gradient boosting methods, with robustness and ablation analyses.

Significance. If the theoretical properties and the empirical comparisons held, the framework would be a useful contribution to conflict-aware evidence fusion, particularly the idea of replacing static source reliability with context-dependent weights learned from historical regret/rejoice feedback. The paper is commendably broad on the experimental side: 16 datasets, multiple noise settings, varying numbers of evidence sources, alternative base evidence generators, hyperparameter sensitivity analysis, and ablations that decompose the contribution of each module. The historical-experience weighting is defined directly rather than fitted to the test folds, and the training/held-out separation in the cross-validation protocol is appropriate. However, the theoretical core is damaged by a false property, and the paper's headline claim of outperforming gradient boosting rests on an underpowered baseline configuration. The practical framework may still be salvageable, but the current manuscript overstates both its theoretical guarantees and its empirical comparisons.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Property 5 and Eq. (14)] Property 5 (refinement insensitivity) is false as stated. Let both mass functions be identical singletons on Theta={theta1}; Eq. (14) gives S(mi,mj)=1, which Property 4 also requires. Refine the frame so theta1 is split into {theta1a, theta1b} and both mass functions put mass 1 on the two-element set A={theta1a, theta1b}. Then the association in Eq. (12) is k = 2*1*1*2 / (2*2*(2+2)) = 0.25, k(mi,mi)=k(mj,mj)=0.25, and S = 0.25 / (1 - 0.25 + 0.0625) ≈ 0.3077. Thus the similarity changes from 1 to about 0.31 under refinement, contradicting the property. The proof's claim that "refined masses are zero" is incorrect: the mass is reassigned to a set of larger cardinality, and that cardinality appears directly in Eq. (12). Since the abstract, introduction, and conclusion advertise five proven properties and define CCM as 1-S, this is a load-bearing theoretical error, not a presentation issue.
  2. [5.1.2, 5.2.1, and Table 3] The comparison against XGBoost, LightGBM, and CatBoost is not a fair test of those methods. Section 5.1.2 states that the number of base decision trees in the ensemble methods is set equal to the number of evidence bodies in the DST methods, and Section 5.2.1 states that three decision trees are used as evidence sources. Consequently, each gradient boosting baseline is configured with only three estimators. Gradient boosting is designed to sequentially fit many weak learners, and three estimators is not a representative configuration for XGBoost, LightGBM, or CatBoost. The reported gaps in Table 3 (e.g., our F1 85.78 versus XGBoost 78.35) are therefore likely to be artifacts of the underpowered baseline configuration. The authors should either run the boosting baselines with appropriate or tuned numbers of estimators, or restrict the superiority claim to the eight DST-based methods.
  3. [5.2.1, Friedman/Nemenyi claim after Table 3] The paper states that the Friedman test and Nemenyi post-hoc test (CD=2.08) show "statistically significant performance advantages over every alternative approach." This is not supported by the reported numbers. From Table 3, the average ranks of the proposed method and LightGBM are, respectively, 3.31 vs. 4.39 for ACC, 3.52 vs. 4.95 for PRE, 2.89 vs. 5.53 for REC, and 3.22 vs. 5.28 for F1; the average over the four metrics differs by about 1.80, which is below CD=2.08. Unless the CD diagram is computed on a different aggregation or a subset of datasets, the claim of significance over every alternative is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. The authors should report the exact test statistic, p-values, and the aggregation used for the average ranks, and should soften the claim accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2, Eq. (12)] The notation in Eq. (12) reuses the indices i and j both for the two evidence sources and for the focal elements, so the expression is ambiguous. Use separate indices, e.g., m_i(S_a) and m_j(S_b), throughout the definition and proof.
  2. [3.3, Definition 13] The description of p_target as a "one-hot vector of dimension 2^n" is imprecise: the object needs to be a BPA with mass 1 on the true singleton, not a one-hot vector in the usual classification sense.
  3. [3.4, Eq. (27)] The decision score in Eq. (27) can have a zero denominator when Plmax=Belmin, for example in degenerate single-class settings. A short discussion of this edge case, or a regularized formulation, would make the decision rule more robust.
  4. [5.1.2, Table 2] The sensitivity analysis in Section 5.2.3 shows that the optimal regions for eta, gamma, and the number of clusters vary across datasets, yet the main experiments fix eta=0.5, gamma=0.5, and |C|=number of classes. The paper should state whether these values were chosen before seeing the test results, or whether any dataset-specific adjustment was made.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and notation issues, including the duplicated "m (S_i)" in Eq. (12), the dangling expression at line 8 of Algorithm 1, and the inconsistent use of bK vs. \hat K in the text. A careful proofread would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the held-out evaluation and direct definitions of CCM and the hybrid rule make the headline results independent of their inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from components that are defined outright rather than fitted to the target result: CCM is defined in Eqs. 12-16, historical-experience weights in Eqs. 18-24, and the hybrid combination rule in Eq. 26. The headline F1/AUC numbers are obtained by 5-fold cross-validation (Section 5.1.3), with historical weights learned on the training portion and applied to held-out folds, so the 'prediction' is not a renaming of fitted values. No equation in the paper reduces the final decision to an input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or self-citation chain is invoked. The invalid proof of Property 5 (refinement insensitivity) in Section 3.2 is a correctness defect, and the use of only three estimators for XGBoost/LightGBM/CatBoost (Sections 5.1.2 and 5.2.1) is a baseline-configuration concern, but neither is a circular derivation of the paper's conclusions; therefore these issues do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim depends mainly on hand-set sensitivity parameters (eta, gamma), a clustering granularity chosen as the number of classes, and the unverified refinement-insensitivity theorem. No physical or ontological entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • eta = 0.5
    Rejoice sensitivity in Eq. 20; set to 0.5 in Table 2 and not learned per dataset.
  • gamma = 0.5
    Regret sensitivity in Eq. 21; set to 0.5 in Table 2 and not learned per dataset.
  • number of spectral clusters |C| = number of classes
    Context partition granularity chosen as the number of classes; sensitivity analysis shows dataset-dependent optimal values.
  • spectral clustering RBF gamma = 1
    Affinity scale for spectral clustering fixed to gamma=1 in Table 2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Dempster-Shafer theory as a model of uncertain evidence (Definitions 1-4).
    The paper assumes DST definitions and the Dempster combination rule without proving them.
  • ad hoc to paper Refinement insensitivity of the CCM similarity measure (Property 5).
    The paper claims S is invariant under frame refinement, but the proof is invalid; a singleton refined to a two-element set changes S from 1 to about 0.31 under Eq. 14. The five-property foundation is therefore not established.
  • domain assumption Regret-rejoice functions from regret theory can be repurposed as evidence credit-assignment scores.
    Equations 20 and 21 treat conflict magnitudes as psychological regret and rejoice utilities; this behavioral analogy is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Spectral clustering produces decision contexts in which evidence reliability is stable.
    The historical weighting scheme assumes cluster membership captures distinct reliability regimes; the paper provides no validation of this assumption beyond ablation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust Dempster-Shafer Evidence Fusion with Chaos-Conflict Measurement and Historical-Experience Weighting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KGTOATYC

@misc{pith2026260813108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust Dempster-Shafer Evidence Fusion with Chaos-Conflict Measurement and Historical-Experience Weighting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KGTOATYC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.13108}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-source evidence fusion under Dempster-Shafer theory faces two persistent challenges: existing conflict measures assess inter-evidence inconsistency and intra-evidence uncertainty independently, yielding incomplete evaluations, and current fusion methods evaluate evidence sources exclusively through instantaneous comparisns without exploiting their long-term reliability across diverse decision contexts. This paper proposes a unified evidence reasoning framework that addresses both limitations. Specifically, a chaos-conflict measurement is introduced to jointly quantify cross-evidence conflict and intra-evidence non-specificity, with five formally proven properties ensuring consistent assessment. A historical experience driven weighting scheme partitions the decision space via spectral clustering and applies regret theory to compute context-specific reliability profiles from past fusion outcomes. These mechanisms feed into a hybrid combination rule that adaptively balances uncertainty preservation against weighted consensus, controlled by the global conflict level, followed by a belief-interval decision strategy that enables robust classification without discarding epistemic uncertainty. Experiments on 16 real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves an average F1 score of 85.78 and a mean AUC of 93.30, outperforming eight DST-based baselines and three gradient boosting methods. Ablation analysis confirms the contribution of each component we proposed. The framework offers an effective approach for adaptive evidence fusion in multi-source decision making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.13108 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall architecture of the proposed framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similarity for Example 2 In summary, the proposed similarity measure quantifies the agreement between evidences by jointly comparing their BPA while fully accounting for their intrinsic uncertainty. On this basis, we introduce the CCM of evidence as follows: Definition 12. CCM. Let mi and mj be two arbitrary mass functions defined on the same FoD Θ and the CCM is defined as Kb  mi , mj  = 1 − S  mi , mj  = 1 − 2… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Similarity for Example 1 Example 2. m1 (θ1) = x, m1 (θ2) = 1 − x m2 (θ1) = x, m2 (θ2) = 1 − x m3 (θ1) = x, m3 (θ1, θ2) = 1 − x where x ∈ [0, 1] and the similarity results are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CD diagram of all models. occupies the uppermost position in the majority of cases, exhibiting substantially higher true positive rates at low false positive rates. This indicates superior discriminative capability and well-calibrated uncertainty estimation, particular…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of ROC curves for different models on 16 datasets randomly reassigned to alternative classes, reflecting typical annotation errors in practical datasets. To further examine the compound effects of concurrent feature and label corruption, two hybrid noise con…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: F1-score under hybrid noise (gaussian feature noise and random label) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: F1-score under hybrid noise (mean feature noise and random label) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Boxplots of average AUC for different models under various noise types and levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparative performance of models across subtree sizes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Sensitivity analysis of clustering performance with respect to the number of clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Joint sensitivity analysis of hyperparameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , author =

    Normalized cuts and image segmentation , volume =. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , author =. 2000 , note =. doi:10.1109/34.868688 , abstract =

    doi:10.1109/34.868688

  2. [2]

    A quantitative measurement of regret theory , volume =

    Bleichrodt, Han and Cillo, Alessandra and Diecidue, Enrico , month = jan, year =. A quantitative measurement of regret theory , volume =. Management Science , publisher =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1097 , abstract =

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    Decision Support Systems , author =

    Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts , volume =. Decision Support Systems , author =. 2000 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00084-6 , abstract =

    doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(99)00084-6 2000

  4. [4]

    Information Sciences , author =

    On the dempster-shafer framework and new combination rules , volume =. Information Sciences , author =. 1987 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0020-0255(87)90007-7 , abstract =

    doi:10.1016/0020-0255(87)90007-7 1987

  5. [5]

    Decision Support Systems , author =

    Combining belief functions based on distance of evidence , volume =. Decision Support Systems , author =. 2004 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.04.015 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.04.015 2004

  6. [6]

    A mathematical theory of evidence , isbn =

    Shafer, Glenn , month = apr, year =. A mathematical theory of evidence , isbn =. doi:10.1515/9780691214696 , abstract =

    doi:10.1515/9780691214696

  7. [7]

    On spectral clustering: analysis and an algorithm , shorttitle =

    Ng, Andrew and Jordan, Michael and Weiss, Yair , year =. On spectral clustering: analysis and an algorithm , shorttitle =. Advances in

    work page

  8. [8]

    Annals of Mathematical Statistics , author =

    Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping , volume =. Annals of Mathematical Statistics , author =. 1967 , pages =. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177698950 , abstract =

    arXiv 1967

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty , volume =

    Loomes, Graham and Sugden, Robert , year =. Regret theory: an alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty , volume =. The Economic Journal , publisher =. doi:10.2307/2232669 , language =

    doi

  2. [10]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =

    Theoretical foundations of t-. Journal of Machine Learning Research , author =. 2022 , pages =

    2022

  3. [11]

    IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , author =

    Toward an axiomatic definition of conflict between belief functions , volume =. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics , author =. 2013 , pages =. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2012.2212703 , language =

    2013

  4. [12]

    Advances in

    Ke, Guolin and Meng, Qi and Finley, Thomas and Wang, Taifeng and Chen, Wei and Ma, Weidong and Ye, Qiwei and Liu, Tie-Yan , year =. Advances in

  5. [13]

    Advances in

    Prokhorenkova, Liudmila and Gusev, Gleb and Vorobev, Aleksandr and Dorogush, Anna Veronika and Gulin, Andrey , year =. Advances in

  6. [14]

    Information fusion for large-scale multi-source data based on the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory , volume=

    Zhang, Qinli and Zhang, Pengfei and Li, Tianrui , year=. Information fusion for large-scale multi-source data based on the Dempster-Shafer evidence theory , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102754 , journal=

    2024

  7. [15]

    Applied Soft Computing , author =

    An ensemble classifier combining dempster–shafer theory and feature selection methods aggregation strategy , volume =. Applied Soft Computing , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113306 , abstract =

    2025

  8. [16]

    Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , author =

    A belief hellinger distance for. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104452 , abstract =

    2021

  9. [17]

    Computational Intelligence , author =

    Representation and combination of uncertainty with belief functions and possibility measures , volume =. Computational Intelligence , author =. 1988 , pages =. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.1988.tb00279.x , abstract =

    1988

  10. [18]

    Borsa Istanbul Review , author =

    Synergy between stock prices and investor sentiment in social media , volume =. Borsa Istanbul Review , author =. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1016/j.bir.2022.09.006 , abstract =

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Proceedings of the 22nd

    Chen, Tianqi and Guestrin, Carlos , month = aug, year =. Proceedings of the 22nd. doi:10.1145/2939672.2939785 , abstract =

  12. [20]

    Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , author =

    Advancements in hybrid machine learning models for biomedical disease classification using integration of hyperparameter-tuning and feature selection methodologies: a comprehensive review , volume =. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering , author =. 2026 , pages =. ...

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    AI Magazine , author =

    A simple view of the dempster-shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination , volume =. AI Magazine , author =. 1986 , note =. doi:10.1609/aimag.v7i2.542 , abstract =

    1986 doi

  14. [22]

    Group decision-making in heterogeneous multi-scale information fusion: Integrating overconfident and non-cooperative behaviors , volume=

    Xiao, Yibin and Ma, Xueling and Zhan, Jianming , year=. Group decision-making in heterogeneous multi-scale information fusion: Integrating overconfident and non-cooperative behaviors , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103401 , journal=

    2025

  15. [23]

    El-Din, Doaa Mohey and Hassanein, Aboul Ella and Hassanien, Ehab E. , year=. An adaptive and late multifusion framework in contextual representation based on evidential deep learning and Dempster–Shafer theory , volume=. Knowledge and Information Systems , publisher=. doi:10.1...

    doi

  16. [24]

    A novel multi-source sensor correlation adaptive fusion framework with uncertainty quantification for intelligent fault diagnosis , volume=

    Yu, Yue and Karimi, Hamid Reza and Gelman, Len and Tian, Jinghui and Mei, Peng , year=. A novel multi-source sensor correlation adaptive fusion framework with uncertainty quantification for intelligent fault diagnosis , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2025.111812 , journal=

  17. [25]

    Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Method Based on Improved Evidence Theory , volume=

    Qiao, Shuanghu and Fan, Yunsheng and Wang, Guofeng and Zhang, Haoyan , year=. Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Method Based on Improved Evidence Theory , volume=. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering , publisher=. doi:10.3390/jmse11061142 , number=

    doi

  18. [26]

    Uncertainty-aware multi-modal time series anomaly detection via reduced-order evidence fusion , volume=

    Li, Qiucen and Wan, Xingheng and Guo, Huicen and Wang, Wei and Liu, Meng and Cui, Yuning , year=. Uncertainty-aware multi-modal time series anomaly detection via reduced-order evidence fusion , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2026.114212 , journal=

  19. [27]

    A comparison of imprecise Bayesianism and Dempster–Shafer theory for automated decisions under ambiguity , volume=

    Radzvilas, Mantas and Peden, William and Tortoli, Daniele and De Pretis, Francesco , year=. A comparison of imprecise Bayesianism and Dempster–Shafer theory for automated decisions under ambiguity , volume=. Journal of Logic and Computation , publisher=. doi:10.1093/logcom/exa...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Context-dependent combination of sensor information in Dempster–Shafer theory for BDI , volume=

    Calderwood, Sarah and McAreavey, Kevin and Liu, Weiru and Hong, Jun , year=. Context-dependent combination of sensor information in Dempster–Shafer theory for BDI , volume=. Knowledge and Information Systems , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s10115-016-0978-0 , number=

    doi

  21. [29]

    Conflict management in sequential evidence combination , volume=

    Zhou, Zixuan and Xiao, Fuyuan , year=. Conflict management in sequential evidence combination , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2025.122958 , journal=

    2025

  22. [30]

    A numerical comparative study of uncertainty measures in the Dempster--Shafer evidence theory , volume=

    Urbani, Michele and Gasparini, Gaia and Brunelli, Matteo , year=. A numerical comparative study of uncertainty measures in the Dempster--Shafer evidence theory , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2023.119027 , journal=

    2023

  23. [31]

    Interval-valued Evidence Updating with Reliability and Sensitivity Analysis for Fault Diagnosis , volume=

    Xu, Xiaobin and Zhang, Zhen and Xu, Dongling and Chen, Yuwang , year=. Interval-valued Evidence Updating with Reliability and Sensitivity Analysis for Fault Diagnosis , volume=. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems , publisher=. doi:10.1080/18756891.2016...

  24. [32]

    Deep evidential fusion with uncertainty quantification and reliability learning for multimodal medical image segmentation , volume=

    Huang, Ling and Ruan, Su and Decazes, Pierre and Denœux, Thierry , year=. Deep evidential fusion with uncertainty quantification and reliability learning for multimodal medical image segmentation , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102648 , journal=

  25. [33]

    An information fusion model of mutual influence between focal elements: A perspective on interference effects in Dempster–Shafer evidence theory , volume=

    Gao, Xiaozhuan and Pan, Lipeng , year=. An information fusion model of mutual influence between focal elements: A perspective on interference effects in Dempster–Shafer evidence theory , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103286 , journal=

    2025

  26. [34]

    Estimation of Vessel Collision Risk Under Uncertainty Using Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Inference Systems and Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory , volume=

    Park, Jinwan , year=. Estimation of Vessel Collision Risk Under Uncertainty Using Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Inference Systems and Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory , volume=. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering , publisher=. doi:10.3390/jmse14010034 , number=

    doi

  27. [35]

    Landslide Mapping Using Two Main Deep-Learning Convolution Neural Network Streams Combined by the Dempster–Shafer Model , volume=

    Ghorbanzadeh, Omid and Meena, Sansar Raj and Shahabi Sorman Abadi, Hejar and Tavakkoli Piralilou, Sepideh and Lv, Zhiyong and Blaschke, Thomas , year=. Landslide Mapping Using Two Main Deep-Learning Convolution Neural Network Streams Combined by the Dempster–Shafer Model , vol...

  28. [36]

    Overcoming negative weighting in uncertainty-based methods: a multi-uncertainty clustering method for evidence fusion , volume=

    Qiu, Zhike and Qin, Yuhao and Chen, Zichong and Zeng, Luping and Cai, Rui , year=. Overcoming negative weighting in uncertainty-based methods: a multi-uncertainty clustering method for evidence fusion , volume=. Complex & Intelligent Systems , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s40747-02...

    doi

  29. [37]

    A multi-damage fusion diagnostic method based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory for guided vision-adaptive detection using guided waves , volume=

    Guo, Bingshuang and Shen, Jiayi and Zhou, Guotai and Gao, Dongyue and Wu, Zhanjun , year=. A multi-damage fusion diagnostic method based on Dempster-Shafer evidence theory for guided vision-adaptive detection using guided waves , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2026.122435 ...

  30. [38]

    Soft likelihood-based multi-source fusion with reliability modeling and optimization under Dempster–Shafer theory , volume=

    Lu, Yangbing and Zhu, Weina , year=. Soft likelihood-based multi-source fusion with reliability modeling and optimization under Dempster–Shafer theory , volume=. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.112993 , journal=

    2025

  31. [39]

    Clustering Validity Function Fusion Method of FCM Clustering Algorithm Based on Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory , volume=

    Wang, Hong-Yu and Wang, Jie-Sheng and Wang, Guan , year=. Clustering Validity Function Fusion Method of FCM Clustering Algorithm Based on Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory , volume=. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s40815-021-01170-2 , number=

    doi

  32. [40]

    Feature selection for label distribution learning using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory , volume=

    Zhao, Zhengwei and Wang, Rongrong and Pang, Wei and Li, Zhaowen , year=. Feature selection for label distribution learning using Dempster-Shafer evidence theory , volume=. Applied Intelligence , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s10489-024-05879-z , number=

    doi

  33. [41]

    and Hoos, Holger H

    van Engelen, Jesper E. and Hoos, Holger H. , year=. A survey on semi-supervised learning , volume=. Machine Learning , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s10994-019-05855-6 , number=

    doi

  34. [42]

    and Al-Dujaili, Ayad and Duan, Ye and Al-Shamma, Omran and Santamaría, J

    Alzubaidi, Laith and Zhang, Jinglan and Humaidi, Amjad J. and Al-Dujaili, Ayad and Duan, Ye and Al-Shamma, Omran and Santamaría, J. and Fadhel, Mohammed A. and Al-Amidie, Muthana and Farhan, Laith , year=. Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, appli...

    doi

  35. [43]

    Nahid and Lucey, Brian , year=

    Hasan, Mahmudul and Abedin, Mohammad Zoynul and Hajek, Petr and Coussement, Kristof and Sultan, Md. Nahid and Lucey, Brian , year=. A blending ensemble learning model for crude oil price forecasting , volume=. Annals of Operations Research , publisher=. doi:10.1007/s10479-023-...

    doi

  36. [44]

    A Fuzzy Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory Method with Belief Divergence for Unmanned Surface Vehicle Multi-Sensor Data Fusion , volume=

    Qiao, Shuanghu and Song, Baojian and Fan, Yunsheng and Wang, Guofeng , year=. A Fuzzy Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory Method with Belief Divergence for Unmanned Surface Vehicle Multi-Sensor Data Fusion , volume=. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering , publisher=. doi:10.3...

    doi

  37. [45]

    Information Fusion for Multi-Source Material Data: Progress and Challenges , volume=

    Zhou, Jingren and Hong, Xin and Jin, Peiquan , year=. Information Fusion for Multi-Source Material Data: Progress and Challenges , volume=. Applied Sciences , publisher=. doi:10.3390/app9173473 , number=

    doi

  38. [46]

    and Zhang, Z

    Chen, L. and Zhang, Z. and Yang, G. and Zhou, Q. and Xia, Y. and Jiang, C. , year=. Evidence-Theory-Based Reliability Analysis From the Perspective of Focal Element Classification Using Deep Learning Approach , volume=. Journal of Mechanical Design , publisher=. doi:10.1115/1....

    doi

  39. [47]

    Strelet, Eugeniu and Castillo, Ivan and Peng, You and Reis, Marco S. , year=. Data Fusion: Integrating Heterogeneous Information Sources in the Chemical Processing Industry , volume=. Journal of Chemometrics , publisher=. doi:10.1002/cem.70075 , number=

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.