The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Generalized evidence theory
Abstract
Dempster-Shafer evidence theory is an efficient tool in knowledge reasoning and decision-making under uncertain environments. Conflict management is an open issue in Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. In past decades, a large amount of research has been conducted on this issue. In this paper, we propose a new theory called generalized evidence theory (GET). In comparison with classical evidence theory, GET addresses conflict management in an open world, where the frame of discernment is incomplete because of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. Within the presented GET, we define a novel concept called generalized basic probability assignment (GBPA) to model uncertain information, and provide a generalized combination rule (GCR) for the combination of GBPAs, and build a generalized conflict model to measure conflict among evidences. Conflicting evidence can be effectively handled using the GET framework. We present many numerical examples that demonstrate that the proposed GET can explain and deal with conflicting evidence more reasonably than existing methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: an introduction to concepts and methods
Hüllermeier, E., & Waegeman, W. (2021) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-021-05946-3 · Cited by 1,834
“Related to this is the “closed world” assumption (Deng, 2014), which is often violated in contemporary machine learning applications.”
BackgroundA Survey of Fake News: Fundamental Theories, Detection Methods, and Opportunities
Zhou, X., & Zafarani, R. (2021) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3395046 · Cited by 1,184
Statistical physics of vaccination
Wang, Z., Bauch, C. T., Bhattacharyya, S., d'Onofrio, A., Manfredi, P., Perc, M., Perra, N., Salathé, M., & Zhao, D. (2016) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.10.006 · Cited by 872
Deep Learning for Safe Autonomous Driving: Current Challenges and Future Directions
Muhammad, K., Ullah, A., Lloret, J., Ser, J. D., & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems · doi:10.1109/tits.2020.3032227 · Cited by 659
Multi-Source Neural Variational Inference
Kurle, R., Günnemann, S., & Van der Smagt, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33014114 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Deng, Y.
- Venue
- Applied Intelligence
- Published
- 2015-04-25
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 530-543
- ISSN
- 0924-669X (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7497
- OpenAlex
- W2117161742
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Generalized evidence theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10489-015-0661-2
- The paper
- Deng, Y. (2015). Generalized evidence theory. Applied Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-015-0661-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.