Independence concepts in evidence theory.

*(English)*Zbl 1205.68421Summary: We study three conditions of independence within evidence theory framework. The first condition refers to the selection of pairs of focal sets. The remaining two ones are related to the choice of a pair of elements, once a pair of focal sets has been selected. These three concepts allow us to formalize the ideas of lack of interaction among variables and among their (imprecise) observations. We illustrate the difference between both types of independence with simple examples about drawing balls from urns. We show that there are no implication relationships between both of them. We also study the relationships between the concepts of “independence in the selection” and “random set independence”, showing that they cannot be simultaneously satisfied, except in some very particular cases.

##### MSC:

68T37 | Reasoning under uncertainty in the context of artificial intelligence |

PDF
BibTeX
XML
Cite

\textit{I. Couso} and \textit{S. Moral}, Int. J. Approx. Reasoning 51, No. 7, 748--758 (2010; Zbl 1205.68421)

Full Text:
DOI

**OpenURL**

##### References:

[1] | Baudrit, C.; Couso, I.; Dubois, D., Joint propagation of probability and possibility in risk analysis: towards a formal framework, International journal of approximate reasoning, 45, 82-105, (2007) · Zbl 1123.68123 |

[2] | Ben Yaghlane, Boutheina; Mellouli, Khaled, Inference in directed evidential networks based on the transferable belief model, International journal of approximate reasoning, 48, 399-418, (2008) · Zbl 1185.68700 |

[3] | de Campos, L.M.; Moral, S., Independence concepts for convex sets of probabilities, (), 108-115 |

[4] | Couso, I.; Moral, S.; Walley, P., A survey of concepts of independence for imprecise probabilities, Risk decision and policy, 5, 165-181, (2000) |

[5] | Dempster, A.P., Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping, Annals of mathematical statistics, 38, 325-339, (1967) · Zbl 0168.17501 |

[6] | Denoeux, T., Conjunctive and disjunctive combination of belief functions induced by non-distinct bodies of evidence, Artificial intelligence, 172, 234-264, (2008) · Zbl 1182.68298 |

[7] | T. Fetz, Sets of joint probability measures generated by weighted marginal focal sets Thomas Fetz, in: Proceedings of ISIPTA’01, 171-178, Ithaca, NY, USA, 2001. |

[8] | Grabisch, M.; Nguyen, H.T.; Walker, E.A., Fundamentals of uncertainty calculi with applications to fuzzy inference, (1995), Kluwer Academic Publishers |

[9] | Ha-Duong, M., Hierarchical fusion of expert opinions in the transferable belief model, application to climate sensitivity, International journal of approximate reasoning, 49, 555-574, (2008) |

[10] | Kallel, A.; Le Hgarat-Mascle, S., Combination of partially non-distinct beliefs: the cautious-adaptive rule, International journal of approximate reasoning, 50, 1000-1021, (2009) · Zbl 1191.68655 |

[11] | S. Moral, L.M. de Campos, Partially specified belief functions, in: D. Heckerman, A. Mandani (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference, Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1994, pp. 492-499. |

[12] | Shafer, G., A mathematical theory of evidence, (1976), Princeton University Press · Zbl 0359.62002 |

[13] | Smets, P., What is dempster – shafer’s model?, (), 5-34 |

[14] | Walley, P., Statistical reasoning with imprecise probabilities, (1991), Chapman and Hall · Zbl 0732.62004 |

[15] | Ben Yaghlane, B.; Smets, P.; Mellouli, K., Belief function independence: I. the marginal case, International journal approximate reasoning, 31, 31-75, (2002) · Zbl 1052.68126 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.