Dempster-Shafer Theory for Handling Conflict in Hydrological Data: Case of Snow Water Equivalent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying uncertainties in hydrological modeling is necessary because of data scarcity or abundance and quality issues. These uncertainties can have significant effects on environmental decision making. Traditionally, probabilistic methods have been used to study uncertainties; however, recently, more comprehensive methods are used in the treatment of uncertainty. These methods are capable of addressing uncertainty in the form of vagueness, ambiguity, and conflict, which cannot be studied efficiently using probabilistic frameworks. The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence (DST) is one of the popular methods that can provide a unified platform to address data conflict and incompleteness. In this paper, the use of DST to model and propagate the uncertainty arising from two snow water equivalent data sets with a high degree of conflict (DST conflict k=0.74) is demonstrated. In DST, on the basis of the nature of data, e.g., the degree of conflict, different combination rules are applicable. Here, four DST combination rules are applied including Dempster-Shafer, Yager, mixture, and the proportional conflict redistribution rule number 6 (PCR6). The outcomes from these rules are compared, and their effects on subsequent decision-making are discussed. Considering the specific condition of the data used, i.e., high-conflict data with limited quality information, results indicate that mixture and PCR6 rules are more appropriate. The resultant uncertainty-driven data set is subsequently used as input into an illustrative hydrologic model demonstrating a method for propagating uncertainty. In addition, the issues of resolving conflict for less contradicting data sets, the dependency between bodies of evidence, and modeling incompleteness are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".