18 April 2019
17 April 2019
17 April 2019
The conflict measures induced by the conjunctive and disjunctive combining rules are studied in this paper in the framework of evidence theory. The coherence of conflict measures with combining rules is introduced and studied. In addition, the structure of conjunctive and disjunctive conflict measures is studied in the paper. In particular, it is shown that the metric and entropy components can be distinguished in such measures. Moreover, these components are changed differently after combining of the bodies of evidence.
The conflict measure and index of decreasing of igno-rance in frame of Dempster-Shafer theory are intro-duced. Those functionals are analyzed on the bodies of evidences of special type. It is shown that the great correlation between the bodies of evidence is a sufficient condition of decreasing of ignorance after the applying of combining rule. The relationships between the measure of conflict and the index of decreasing of ignorance in the case of different types of evidences and the application of different combining rules were investigated.
This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Belief Functions, BELIEF 2018, held in Compiègne, France, in September 2018.The 33 revised regular papers presented in this book were carefully selected and reviewed from 73 submissions. The papers were solicited on theoretical aspects (including for example statistical inference, mathematical foundations, continuous belief functions) as well as on applications in various areas including classification, statistics, data fusion, network analysis and intelligent vehicles.
The article is dedicated to the method of aggregation of financial analysts’ recommendations in the framework of the evidence theory. This method considered on the example of Russian stock market and the quality of the obtained results was compared with the classical consensus forecast. It is shown that the combination rules, which are widely developed in the theory of evidence, allow aggregating the recommendations of analysts taking into account the historical reliability of information sources, the nature of the taken decisions (pessimism-optimism), the conflict between forecasts and recommendations, etc. In most cases it turned out that, obtained aggregated forecasts are more accurate than consensus forecast.