Dempster-Shafer
Models
This can be
regarded as a more general approach to representing uncertainty than the
Bayesian approach.
Bayesian
methods are sometimes inappropriate:
Let A
represent the proposition Demi Moore is attractive.
Then the
axioms of probability insist that data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cdc44/cdc44f22efb3bc67037159c09e977410939b2559" alt="tex2html_wrap_inline7580"
Now suppose
that Andrew does not even know who Demi Moore is.
Then
- We
cannot say that Andrew believes the proposition if he has no idea what it
means.
- Also,
It is not fair to say that he disbelieves the proposition.
- It
would therefore be meaningful to denote Andrew's belief of B(A)
and
as
both being 0.
- Certainty
factors do not allow this.
The
basic idea in representing uncertainty in this model is:
- Set
up a confidence interval -- an interval of probabilities within which the
true probability lies with a certain confidence -- based on the
Belief B and plausibility PL provided by
some evidence E for a proposition P.
- The
belief brings together all the evidence that would lead us to believe
in P with some certainty.
- The
plausibility brings together the evidence that is compatible with P and
is not inconsistent with it.
- This
method allows for further additions to the set of knowledge and does not
assume disjoint outcomes.
If
is the set of possible outcomes, then a mass probability, M,
is defined for each member of the set
and takes
values in the range [0,1].
The Null set,
, is also a member
of
.
NOTE: This deals
wit set theory terminology that will be dealt with in a tutorial shortly. Also
see exercises to get experience of problem solving in this important subject
matter.
M is a probability
density function defined not just for
but
for em all subsets.
So if
is the set { Flu
(F), Cold (C), Pneumonia (P) } then
is the set
{
, {F}, {C}, {P}, {F, C}, {F, P},
{C, P}, {F, C, P} }
- The
confidence interval is then defined as [B(E),PL(E)]
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ccc60/ccc603ffeeaf842e3f477d05bdd596b1b05e130d" alt="displaymath1649"
where
i.e. all the
evidence that makes us believe in the correctness of P,
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7c56b/7c56b0cbe7f2f859f2201328f08d9bcfdcad8dc0" alt="eqnarray1652"
where
i.e. all the
evidence that contradicts P.
- We
have the ability to assign M to a set of hypotheses.
- To
combine multiple sources of evidence to a single (or multiple) hypothesis
do the following:
- Suppose
and
are two
belief functions.
- Let X be
the set set of subsets of
to
which
assigns
a nonzero value and letY be a similar set for data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/23c59/23c5994d399f7d96b8bd146372683f01b8b0961c" alt="tex2html_wrap_inline7652"
- Then
to get a new belief function
from
the combination of beliefs in
and
we do:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6ab59/6ab593b0151f68fb1a37e3b6cd24a38f1eaf44b3" alt="displaymath1662"
whenever
.
NOTE: We define
to be 0 so
that the orthogonal sum remains a basic probability assignment.