Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

A Novel Method for Pignistic Information Fusion in the View of Z-number

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a new combination rule that splits off conflict, weights propositions by entropy-derived reliability, and uses pignistic-OWA aggregation, so that high-conflict evidence yields the intuitively correct target rather than…

desk verdict A marginal variant of the author's own He's method and Pan-Deng's OWA transform, presented with sloppy notation and an unjustified self-combination step; the numerical examples are roughly reproducible but the method is not as 'completely new' or as well-validated as claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06201 v1 pith:5OMWBXPA submitted 2024-12-27 cs.AI

Yuanpeng He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords Dempster-ShaferevidencetheoryZ-numberpignistictransformationOWAoperatorDengentropyconflictinginformationfusionmulti-sensor
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 proposes a new rule for combining pieces of evidence within Dempster-Shafer theory. It separates the conflicting part of the evidence, measures each source's uncertainty with Deng entropy, builds a Z-number-like reliability weight for each proposition, converts multi-element masses to single-proposition probabilities via the pignistic transformation, and aggregates the weighted probabilities with an OWA operator before recombining the conflict-free part. The author argues that this pipeline keeps the ranking of Dempster's rule in low-conflict cases while avoiding its counter-intuitive outcomes in high-conflict cases, and that it produces the most decisive separation between the leading hypothesis and the rest of the alternatives in every tested example.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a hybrid evidence transformation: for each atomic proposition, a Z-number-like pair consisting of a pignistic probability and an entropy-derived reliability weight, where reliability is the normalized exponential of negative Deng entropy. An OWA operator aggregates these pairs across sources to produce a refined mass for each proposition; the unnormalized conflict mass from a Yager-style combination is redistributed proportionally to these refined masses; and finally Dempster's rule combines the modified evidence with itself n−1 times. The pignistic transform's role is to resolve multi-element masses onto singletons, and the OWA's role is to suppress outlier sources while preserving the overall ranking of propositions.

What would settle it

Compute the outputs of Equations (18)–(25) on the paper's own examples, then apply Section 3.7's self-combination exactly as written; if the resulting masses do not match the published tables (for example, ξ(T)=0.4999 in Example 1), the described algorithm is incomplete or the self-combination step is doing the work attributed to the Z-number weighting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that evidence fusion can be made both robust to conflict and more decisive by treating reliability at the proposition level rather than only at the source level. Each mass is paired with an entropy-derived reliability weight to form a Z-number-like object; the pignistic transform flattens multi-singleton masses onto atomic propositions; an OWA aggregation over the weighted pignistic probabilities produces a refined mass assignment; and the conflict mass from an unnormalized Yager-style combination is then reallocated proportionally to these refined masses. The paper asserts that this procedure yields the correct decision in the classic high-conflict example where Dempster's rule gives a counter-intuitive answer, and that it consistently sharpens the leading proposition's mass in mild cases and in applications to iris classification and fault diagnosis.

Load-bearing premise

The procedure assumes that fusing a single synthesized evidence with itself, repeated n−1 times through Dempster's rule, acts as a legitimate sharpening of the true probabilities even though the copies are not independent sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In high-conflict situations, the method identifies the hypothesis supported by the majority of the evidence rather than the counter-intuitive winner produced by Dempster's rule.
  • In low-conflict situations, the relative ordering of propositions matches Dempster's rule while the separation between the top proposition and the rest increases, making the decision more straightforward.
  • The method handles set-valued focal elements through the pignistic transform, so it does not require discarding multi-element evidence before fusion.
  • Applied to real datasets represented as basic probability assignments, the method yields a higher belief in the correct target than the compared combination rules.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proposition-level reliability weighting suggests a general recipe: any conflict-management scheme that redistributes conflict mass could use the same pignistic-plus-OWA refinement, and the choice of Deng entropy as the reliability measure could be replaced by other uncertainty measures and tested for sensitivity.
  • The reported gain in decisiveness may depend on the self-combination step in Section 3.7 rather than on the Z-number weighting itself; this is testable by comparing the published results against a version that combines the modified evidence from all sources only once.
  • A natural extension would be to apply the same construction to belief functions on larger frames of discernment, where the pignistic flattening and OWA aggregation could be evaluated against probabilistic outputs of other conflict-resolution rules.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Dempster-Shafer evidence-theoretic fusion method that combines pignistic transformation, Deng entropy, Z-number-like reliability pairs, OWA aggregation, and an unnormalized conflict mass. The pipeline is: (i) obtain a conflict mass via Yager-style unnormalized combination (Eqs. 18-19); (ii) compute Deng entropy and softmax-based reliabilities (Eqs. 20-21); (iii) form Z-number pairs per proposition (Eq. 22); (iv) aggregate via OWA (Eqs. 23-24); (v) form a modified BPA (Eq. 25); (vi) combine the modified BPA by Dempster's rule n-1 times (Section 3.7). The paper claims high accuracy and superiority over Dempster, Yager, Murphy, He, and other methods, supported by four numerical examples and two applications.

Significance. If the method were correctly specified and the reported improvements were reproducible, it would be a useful contribution to conflict management in evidence fusion: it is parameter-free, deterministic, and combines several existing ideas in a motivated way. The paper's strength is its clear attempt to address Zadeh's classic counter-intuitive conflict example without discarding the conflicting mass. However, the central aggregation equation is not well-defined, the n-1 self-combination step has no evidential justification, and the numerical tables do not follow from the stated formulas. The claimed significance therefore cannot currently be assessed, and the validation does not provide an external accuracy criterion.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.5, Eq. (24)] The quantity omega_Pi is defined in Eq. (23) as the set {Delta_Evi1, ..., Delta_Evin}, so the product eta(Pi)^Evik times omega_Pi in Eq. (24) is not a defined mathematical expression. Even if omega_Pi is read as the vector of all Delta values, Eq. (24) never orders the inputs and never specifies the OWA weight vector required by Eqs. (10)-(11). The core aggregation step is therefore not a well-specified OWA operation, and the subsequent numerical results cannot be derived from it.
  2. [3.7] After Eq. (25) there is only one synthesized BPA. Instructing the reader to combine the modified values by Dempster's rule n-1 times means feeding that single BPA into Dempster's rule as if it were n independent sources. Dempster's rule is justified for independent bodies of evidence; self-combining identical evidence has no such justification and merely sharpens dominant propositions without adding information. The paper offers no argument that iterated self-combination preserves the true probabilities, and it is ambiguous whether n denotes the original number of sources or the number of combination passes. This step is load-bearing because it creates the decisive margins reported in Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8.
  3. [Tables 2, 4, 6, 8 vs Eqs. (18)-(25)] The numerical results are not consequences of the stated algorithm. For Example 1, direct computation from Eqs. (18)-(25) gives approximately (0.4950, 0.0101, 0.4950), whereas Table 2 reports (0.4999, 0.0002, 0.4999); reproducing the table requires an undocumented self-combination step. For Examples 2 and 3, Eqs. (18)-(25) leave positive mass on the compound focal element {T,Y}, but Tables 4, 6, and 8 report zero mass for {T,Y} with no stated reallocation. The claimed 'high accuracy' is therefore not reproducible from the published equations.
  4. [Sections 4 and 5] The evaluation does not provide a falsifiable test of the central claim. Section 4.1 asserts that propositions T and U 'are supposed to be allocated a mass close to 0.5', but that is an assumption built into the example rather than a measured outcome. The IRIS application in Section 5.1 reports no classification accuracy against known labels, and the procedure that converts the data into the BPAs of Table 9 is not described. Without an external accuracy criterion, the abstract's claim that the method 'keeps high accuracy in producing rational and correct judgments' is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.3, Eq. (9)] The sentence after Eq. (9) says 'xi(empty) is not equal to 0', but Eq. (4) defines xi(empty)=0; the intended condition should be clarified.
  2. [2.4, Eqs. (10)-(12)] The OWA operator is typeset incorrectly: the displayed vector in Eq. (10) appears as all theta_1 entries rather than a vector of dimension n, and Eq. (12) is an incomplete statement of the weight-sum property.
  3. [3.3] The notation ZEvi1 = {ZA1 = (xi(A1), Delta_Evi1), ...} mixes ordered-pair tuples with set notation; using a consistent tuple or vector notation would avoid ambiguity.
  4. [5.1] Table 9 reports BPAs for the IRIS data, but the procedure that converts attribute measurements into these BPAs is not described, so the application cannot be independently reproduced.
  5. [Throughout] The word 'carnality' appears where 'cardinality' is meant in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, and several figure captions are duplicated as 'The detailed process of proposed method'; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

No qualifying circular step in the derivation; the final self-combination step is under-specified and the validation is self-referential, but the method is a deterministic function of its inputs with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is a fixed, parameter-free algorithm: Eqs. (18)-(25) compute an entropy-weighted pignistic average, reallocate the unnormalized conflict mass, and then Section 3.7 instructs combining the resulting single modified BPA with itself n-1 times via Dempster's rule. There is no fitted constant and the final judgment is not defined in terms of itself, so the derivation is not circular in the strict sense. The self-citations, including He's method [58], appear only as comparison baselines and do not justify the central construction. However, the final self-combination step is an omitted proof and is not independently justified as a fusion of distinct sources; it is needed to reproduce the published tables, but that is a reproducibility and validity concern rather than an input-output equivalence. The validation is also self-referential: the method is designed to yield intuitive results on classic conflict examples and is then judged on those same examples. These issues raise the score above 2 but do not meet the evidentiary bar for a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The core method rests on several assumptions: Deng entropy as the correct uncertainty measure, softmax of negative entropy as reliability, pignistic transformation as the right way to split multi-subsets, the simplified Yager conflict extraction, and the validity of self-Dempster sharpening. None of these is derived or externally benchmarked. The OWA step additionally rests on an incorrect characterization of OWA.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Dempster-Shafer theory and its combination rule are valid.
    Invoked throughout the preliminaries and used as the final combination step in Section 3.7.
  • domain assumption Deng entropy correctly measures the uncertainty of a BPA.
    Section 3.2 defines and adopts Deng entropy without comparing it to other uncertainty measures.
  • ad hoc to paper The softmax of negative Deng entropy gives the reliability of each evidence.
    Section 3.3, Eq 21, introduces the softmax formula with no derivation or external justification.
  • domain assumption Pignistic transformation is the correct way to split multi-subset masses into singleton probabilities.
    Section 3.4 uses the pignistic transformation and cites Smets' work as the authority.
  • ad hoc to paper The unnormalized combination with leftover mass ξ(X) correctly captures the conflicting part of evidence.
    Section 3.1 defines ξ(X) as the undistributed mass, but this is a simplification of Yager's rule with no formal justification.
  • ad hoc to paper OWA aggregation can be applied to the reliability-weighted pignistic values without ordering the inputs.
    Section 3.5 claims the Z-numbers fit the OWA form, but Eq 24 is a plain weighted average with no ordering step, so it is not an OWA operator.
invented entities (1)
  • Z-number-like pair (ξ, Δ)
    purpose: To attach a reliability scalar to each proposition mass before aggregation.
    This is not a true Z-number in Zadeh's sense (which requires fuzzy numbers for both components); it is just a mass value paired with a softmax reliability value, introduced ad hoc to the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Novel Method for Pignistic Information Fusion in the View of Z-number." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OMWBXPA

@misc{pith2026250106201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Novel Method for Pignistic Information Fusion in the View of Z-number},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OMWBXPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06201}
}
read the original abstract

How to properly fuse information from complex sources is still an open problem. Lots of methods have been put forward to provide a effective solution in fusing intricate information. Among them, Dempster-Shafer evidences theory (DSET) is one of the representatives, it is widely used to handle uncertain information. Based on DSET, a completely new method to fuse information from different sources based on pignistic transformation and Z-numbers is proposed in this paper which is able to handle separate situations of information and keeps high accuracy in producing rational and correct judgments on actual situations. Besides, in order to illustrate the superiority of the proposed method, some numerical examples and application are also provided to verify the validity and robustness of it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Process of evaluating hidden probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The detailed process of proposed method the next step. 3.7. Combine modified evidences Then, combine the modified values of propositions using traditional Dempster’s rule of combination n − 1 times to get final judgment of actual situations. 4. Numerical examples 4.1. Example 1: Extremely conflicting environment Assume there exist two pieces of evidences and corresponding FOD is defined as Θ = {T,Y, U, {T,Y}}. And t… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Results of combination of methods in Example 3 The situation of this example is very similar to Example 2. In Example 3, all of relationship of the mass of propositions generated by methods are 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Results of combination of different methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results of combination of different methods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. Gao, Y. Deng, The pseudo-pascal triangle of maximum deng entropy, Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 15 (1) (2020). doi:10.15837/ijccc.2020.1.3735. URL https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2020.1.3735

    work page doi:10.15837/ijccc.2020.1.3735 2020

  2. [2]

    R. R. Yager, On the maximum entropy negation of a probability distribution, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23 (5) (2015) 1899–1902. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2374211. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2014.2374211

    work page arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Xiao, On the maximum entropy negation of a complex-valued distribution, IEEE Trans

    F. Xiao, On the maximum entropy negation of a complex-valued distribution, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (11) (2021) 3259–3269. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3016723. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3016723

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    H. Garg, D. Rani, Novel aggregation operators and ranking method for complex intuition- istic fuzzy sets and their applications to decision-making process, Artif. Intell. Rev. 53 (5) (2020) 3595–3620. doi:10.1007/s10462-019-09772-x . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09772-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-019-09772-x 2020

  5. [5]

    J. Deng, Y. Deng, Information volume of fuzzy membership function, Int. J. Comput. Com- mun. Control 16 (1) (2020). doi:10.15837/ijccc.2021.1.4106. URL https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2021.1.4106

    work page doi:10.15837/ijccc.2021.1.4106 2020

  6. [6]

    Y. He, L. Li, T. Zhan, A matrix-based distance of pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in medical diagnosis (2024). arXiv:2102.01538. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01538

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets - Theory and Applications, Vol. 35 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Physica-Verlag, 1999. doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3

    doi:10.1007/978-3-7908-1870-3 1999

  8. [8]

    Y. Song, Q. Fu, Y. Wang, X. Wang, Divergence-based cross entropy and uncertainty mea- sures of atanassov’s intuitionistic fuzzy sets with their application in decision making, Appl. Soft Comput. 84 (2019). doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105703. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105703 23

    work page arXiv 2019

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, Ordinal fuzzy entropy, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems 19 (3) (2022) 171– 186

    2022

  2. [10]

    Xiao, CEQD: A complex mass function to predict interference effects, IEEE Trans

    F. Xiao, CEQD: A complex mass function to predict interference effects, IEEE Trans. Cy- bern. 52 (8) (2022) 7402–7414. doi:10.1109/TCYB.2020.3040770. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.3040770

    2022

  3. [11]

    H. Garg, D. Rani, Some results on information measures for complex intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34 (10) (2019) 2319–2363. doi:10.1002/int.22127. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22127

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, Tdqmf: Two-dimensional quantum mass function, Information Sciences 621 (2023) 749–765

    2023

  5. [13]

    Xiao, Generalization of dempster-shafer theory: A complex mass function, Appl

    F. Xiao, Generalization of dempster-shafer theory: A complex mass function, Appl. Intell. 50 (10) (2020) 3266–3275. doi:10.1007/s10489-019-01617-y . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-019-01617-y

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Xiao, Generalized belief function in complex evidence theory, J

    F. Xiao, Generalized belief function in complex evidence theory, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 38 (4) (2020) 3665–3673. doi:10.3233/JIFS-179589. URL https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179589

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    L. Fei, Y. Feng, L. Liu, Evidence combination using owa-based soft likelihood functions, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34 (9) (2019) 2269–2290. doi:10.1002/int.22166. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22166

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    J. C. R. Alcantud, F. Feng, R. R. Yager, An $n$-soft set approach to rough sets, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (11) (2020) 2996–3007. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2946526. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2946526

    2020

  9. [17]

    F. Feng, J. Cho, W. Pedrycz, H. Fujita, T. Herawan, Soft set based association rule mining, Knowl. Based Syst. 111 (2016) 268–282. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2016.08.020. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2016.08.020

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    Y. Song, Y. Deng, A new soft likelihood function based on power ordered weighted average operator, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34 (11) (2019) 2988–2999. doi:10.1002/int.22182. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22182 24

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    X. Deng, W. Jiang, On the negation of a dempster-shafer belief structure based on max- imum uncertainty allocation, Inf. Sci. 516 (2020) 346–352. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2019.12. 080. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2019.12.080

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Y. He, F. Xiao, Conflicting management of evidence combination from the point of im- provement of basic probability assignment, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 36 (5) (2021) 1914–1942

    2021

  13. [21]

    P . Liu, X. Zhang, A new hesitant fuzzy linguistic approach for multiple attribute decision making based on dempster-shafer evidence theory, Appl. Soft Comput. 86 (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105897. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105897

    2020

  14. [22]

    Z. Luo, Y. Deng, A vector and geometry interpretation of basic probability assignment in dempster-shafer theory, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 35 (6) (2020) 944–962. doi:10.1002/int.22231. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22231

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, Mmget: a markov model for generalized evidence theory, Computational and Applied Mathematics 41 (2022) 1–41

    2022

  16. [24]

    Z. Luo, Y. Deng, A matrix method of basic belief assignment’s negation in dempster- shafer theory, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (9) (2020) 2270–2276. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2019. 2930027. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2930027

    2020

  17. [25]

    Jiang, Y

    W. Jiang, Y. Cao, X. Deng, A novel z-network model based on bayesian network and z-number, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (8) (2020) 1585–1599. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2019. 2918999. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2918999

    2020

  18. [26]

    Q. Liu, Y. Tian, B. Kang, Derive knowledge of z-number from the perspective of dempster- shafer evidence theory, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 85 (2019) 754–764. doi:10.1016/j. engappai.2019.08.005. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2019.08.005 25

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, TDQMF: two-dimensional quantum mass function, Inf. Sci. 621 (2023) 749–

    2023

  20. [28]

    Y. Li, D. Pelusi, Y. Deng, Generate two-dimensional belief function based on an improved similarity measure of trapezoidal fuzzy numbers, Comput. Appl. Math. 39 (4) (2020).doi: 10.1007/s40314-020-01371-9 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-020-01371-9

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    X. Deng, W. Jiang, A total uncertainty measure for D numbers based on belief intervals, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 34 (12) (2019) 3302–3316. doi:10.1002/int.22195. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22195

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    X. Deng, W. Jiang, Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy en- vironment: A novel method based on D number theory, Int. J. Fuzzy Syst. 21 (5) (2019) 1389–1402. doi:10.1007/s40815-019-00639-5 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-019-00639-5

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    P . Liu, X. Zhang, Z. Wang, An extended VIKOR method for multiple attribute decision making with linguistic D numbers based on fuzzy entropy, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 19 (1) (2020) 143–167. doi:10.1142/S0219622019500433. URL https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622019500433

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Mo, A SWOT method to evaluate safety risks in life cycle of wind turbine extended by D number theory, J

    H. Mo, A SWOT method to evaluate safety risks in life cycle of wind turbine extended by D number theory, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 40 (3) (2021) 4439–4452.doi:10.3233/JIFS-201277. URL https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-201277

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Y. He, L. Li, T. Zhan, W. Jiao, C.-M. Pun, Generalized uncertainty-based evidential fu- sion with hybrid multi-head attention for weak-supervised temporal action localization, in: ICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Pro- cessing (ICAS...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Z. Liu, Y. Liu, J. Dezert, F. Cuzzolin, Evidence combination based on credal belief redis- tribution for pattern classification, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (4) (2020) 618–631. doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2911915. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2911915 26

    2020

  27. [35]

    Xiao, A distance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern classification problems, IEEE Trans

    F. Xiao, A distance measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and its application to pattern classification problems, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 51 (6) (2021) 3980–3992. doi:10.1109/TSMC.2019.2958635. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2958635

    2021

  28. [36]

    Y. He, F. Xiao, A new base function in basic probability assignment for conflict manage- ment, Applied Intelligence 52 (4) (2022) 4473–4487

    2022

  29. [37]

    C. Fu, M. Xue, W. Chang, D. Xu, S. Yang, An evidential reasoning approach based on risk attitude and criterion reliability, Knowl. Based Syst. 199 (2020) 105947. doi:10.1016/j. knosys.2020.105947. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.105947

    2020

  30. [38]

    Y. Pan, L. Zhang, X. Wu, M. J. Skibniewski, Multi-classifier information fusion in risk anal- ysis, Inf. Fusion 60 (2020) 121–136. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2020.02.003. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.02.003

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Y. Pan, L. Zhang, Z. Li, L. Ding, Improved fuzzy bayesian network-based risk analysis with interval-valued fuzzy sets and D-S evidence theory, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 28 (9) (2020) 2063–2077. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2929024. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2929024

    2020

  32. [40]

    H. Wang, Y. Fang, E. Zio, Risk assessment of an electrical power system considering the influence of traffic congestion on a hypothetical scenario of electrified transporta- tion system in new york state, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 22 (1) (2021) 142–155. doi:10.1109/TIT...

    2021

  33. [41]

    Soubaras, An evidential measure of risk in evidential markov chains, in: C

    H. Soubaras, An evidential measure of risk in evidential markov chains, in: C. Sossai, G. Chemello (Eds.), Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncer- tainty, 10th European Conference, ECSQARU 2009, Verona, Italy, July 1-3, 2009. Pro- ceedings, Vol. 5590 of L...

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    F. Xiao, Z. Cao, A. Jolfaei, A novel conflict measurement in decision-making and its ap- plication in fault diagnosis, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (1) (2021) 186–197. doi:10.1109/ TFUZZ.2020.3002431. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3002431

    2021

  35. [43]

    Z. Gong, L. Fan, Three-way multi-attribute decision making based on outranking rela- tions under intuitionistic fuzzy environments, Symmetry 13 (8) (2021) 1384. doi:10.3390/ sym13081384. URL https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13081384

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, Ordinal belief entropy, Soft Computing 27 (11) (2023) 6973–6981

    2023

  37. [45]

    Y. He, F. Xiao, A new base function in basic probability assignment for conflict manage- ment, Appl. Intell. 52 (4) (2022) 4473–4487. doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02525-w . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-021-02525-w

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    M. Tang, H. Liao, E. Herrera-Viedma, C. L. P . Chen, W. Pedrycz, A dynamic adaptive subgroup-to-subgroup compatibility-based conflict detection and resolution model for multicriteria large-scale group decision making, IEEE Trans. Cybern. 51 (10) (2021) 4784–

    2021

  39. [47]

    Deng, Uncertainty measure in evidence theory, Sci

    Y. Deng, Uncertainty measure in evidence theory, Sci. China Inf. Sci. 63 (11) (2020). doi: 10.1007/s11432-020-3006-9 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-3006-9

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    F. Liu, Z. Wang, Y. Deng, GMM: A generalized mechanics model for identifying the im- portance of nodes in complex networks, Knowl. Based Syst. 193 (2020) 105464. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105464. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105464

    2020

  41. [49]

    T. Zhan, F. Xiao, A fast evidential approach for stock forecasting, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 36 (12) (2021) 7544–7562. doi:10.1002/int.22598. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22598 28

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    K. Wu, F. Xiao, A novel quantum belief entropy for uncertainty measure in complex evi- dence theory, Inf. Sci. 652 (2024) 119744. doi:10.1016/J.INS.2023.119744. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.119744

    2024

  43. [51]

    R. Liu, Z. Li, Y. Deng, Performance evaluation of information fusion systems based on be- lief entropy, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 127 (Part A) (2024) 107262.doi:10.1016/J.ENGAPPAI. 2023.107262. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.107262

    2024

  44. [52]

    J. Deng, Y. Deng, DBE: dynamic belief entropy for evidence theory with its application in data fusion, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 123 (Part B) (2023) 106339. doi:10.1016/J.ENGAPPAI. 2023.106339. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106339

    2023

  45. [53]

    L. Pan, X. Gao, Evidential markov decision-making model based on belief entropy to pre- dict interference effects, Inf. Sci. 633 (2023) 10–26. doi:10.1016/J.INS.2023.03.059. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.03.059

    2023 doi

  46. [54]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, Ordinal belief entropy, Soft Comput. 27 (11) (2023) 6973–6981. doi:10. 1007/S00500-023-07947-X . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07947-x

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Xiao, Complex belief interval-based distance measure with its application in pattern recognition, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 37 (10) (2022) 6811–6832. doi:10.1002/INT.22863. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22863

    2022 doi

  48. [56]

    M. Zhou, Y. Zhou, J. Yang, J. Wu, A generalized belief dissimilarity measure based on weighted conflict belief and distance metric and its application in multi-source data fusion, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 475 (2024) 108719. doi:10.1016/J.FSS.2023.108719. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j....

    2024

  49. [57]

    Y. Lu, F. Xiao, A novel belief tanimoto coefficient with its applications in multisource in- formation fusion, Appl. Intell. 54 (1) (2024) 985–1002. doi:10.1007/S10489-023-05217-9 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-05217-9 29

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    Y. He, F. Xiao, Conflicting management of evidence combination from the point of im- provement of basic probability assignment, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 36 (5) (2021) 1914–1942. doi:10.1002/int.22366. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22366

    2021 doi

  51. [59]

    Y. He, Y. Deng, MMGET: a markov model for generalized evidence theory, Comput. Appl. Math. 41 (1) (2022). doi:10.1007/S40314-021-01697-Y . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-021-01697-y

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    Y. Tian, L. Liu, X. Mi, B. Kang, ZSLF: A new soft likelihood function based on z-numbers and its application in expert decision system, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 29 (8) (2021) 2283–

    2021

  53. [61]

    L. Pan, Y. Deng, Probability transform based on the ordered weighted averaging and en- tropy difference, Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 15 (4) (2020). doi:10.15837/ijccc. 2020.4.3743. URL https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2020.4.3743

    2020 doi

  54. [62]

    H. Liao, Z. Ren, R. Fang, A deng-entropy-based evidential reasoning approach for multi- expert multi-criterion decision-making with uncertainty, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 13 (1) (2020) 1281–1294. doi:10.2991/ijcis.d.200814.001. URL https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.200814.001

    2020 doi

  55. [63]

    R. R. Yager, Generalized dempster-shafer structures, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 27 (3) (2019) 428–435. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2859899. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2859899

    2019

  56. [64]

    Q. Cai, X. Gao, Y. Deng, Pignistic belief transform: A new method of conflict measurement, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 15265–15272. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966821. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2966821

    2020

  57. [65]

    A. P . Dempster, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping, in: R. R. Yager, L. Liu (Eds.), Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, Vol. 219 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, Springer, 2008, pp. 57–72. doi: 30 10.1007/978...

    2008 doi

  58. [66]

    Shafer, A mathematical theory of evidence turns 40, Int

    G. Shafer, A mathematical theory of evidence turns 40, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 79 (2016) 7–25. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2016.07.009. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.07.009

    2016 doi

  59. [67]

    Smets, Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation, Int

    P . Smets, Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation, Int. J. Approx. Reason. 38 (2) (2005) 133–147. doi:10.1016/j.ijar.2004.05.003. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2004.05.003

    2005 doi

  60. [68]

    R. R. Yager, J. Kacprzyk, G. Beliakov (Eds.), Recent Developments in the Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Practice, Vol. 265 of Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Com- puting, Springer, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-17910-5 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17910-5

    2011 doi

  61. [69]

    R. R. Yager, On the dempster-shafer framework and new combination rules, Inf. Sci. 41 (2) (1987) 93–137. doi:10.1016/0020-0255(87)90007-7. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-0255(87)90007-7

    1987 doi

  62. [70]

    L. A. Zadeh, A note on z-numbers, Inf. Sci. 181 (14) (2011) 2923–2932. doi:10.1016/j.ins. 2011.02.022. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.022

    2011 doi

  63. [71]

    L. A. Zadeh, A simple view of the dempster-shafer theory of evidence and its implication for the rule of combination, AI Mag. 7 (2) (1986) 85–90. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/542

    1986

  64. [72]

    M. Jing, Y. Tang, A new base basic probability assignment approach for conflict data fusion in the evidence theory, Appl. Intell. 51 (2) (2021) 1056–1068. doi:10.1007/ s10489-020-01876-0 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01876-0

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    Y. Wang, K. Zhang, Y. Deng, Base belief function: an efficient method of conflict man- agement, J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 10 (9) (2019) 3427–3437. doi:10.1007/ 31 s12652-018-1099-2 . URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-1099-2

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    C. K. Murphy, Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts, Decis. Support Syst. 29 (1) (2000) 1–9. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00084-6. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00084-6

    2000 doi

  67. [75]

    X. Fan, M. J. Zuo, Fault diagnosis of machines based on D-S evidence theory. part 1: D-S evidence theory and its improvement, Pattern Recognit. Lett. 27 (5) (2006) 366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2005.08.025. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.08.025

    2006 doi

  68. [76]

    K. Yuan, F. Xiao, L. Fei, B. Kang, Y. Deng, Modeling sensor reliability in fault diagnosis based on evidence theory, Sensors 16 (1) (2016) 113. doi:10.3390/s16010113. URL https://doi.org/10.3390/s16010113

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Xiao, Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy, Inf

    F. Xiao, Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy, Inf. Fusion 46 (2019) 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2018.04.003. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2018.04.003 32

    2019 doi

  70. [765]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.036

    doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.036. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.11.036

    2022 doi

  71. [2295]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2997328

    doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2997328. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2020.2997328

    2020

  72. [4795]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974924

    doi:10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974924. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974924

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.