MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054999339 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.853337

Connectionist-Based Dempster–Shafer Evidential Reasoning for Data Fusion

2005· article· en· W2054999339 on OpenAlexaff
Otman Basir, Fakhri Karray, Hui Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDempster–Shafer theoryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEvidential reasoning approachArtificial neural networkConnectionismMachine learningA priori and a posterioriContext (archaeology)Benchmark (surveying)Multilayer perceptronBayesian probabilityPerceptronSensor fusionDecision support system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dempster-Shafer evidence theory (DSET) is a popular paradigm for dealing with uncertainty and imprecision. Its corresponding evidential reasoning framework is theoretically attractive. However, there are outstanding issues that hinder its use in real-life applications. Two prominent issues in this regard are 1) the issue of basic probability assignments (masses) and 2) the issue of dependence among information sources. This paper attempts to deal with these issues by utilizing neural networks in the context of pattern classification application. First, a multilayer perceptron neural network with the mean squared error as a cost function is implemented to calculate, for each information source, posteriori probabilities for all classes. Second, an evidence structure construction scheme is developed for transferring the estimated posteriori probabilities to a set of masses along with the corresponding focal elements, from a Bayesian decision point of view. Third, a network realization of the Dempster-Shafer evidential reasoning is designed and analyzed, and it is further extended to a DSET-based neural network, referred to as DSETNN, to manipulate the evidence structures. In order to tackle the issue of dependence between sources, DSETNN is tuned for optimal performance through a supervised learning process. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, we apply it to three benchmark pattern classification problems. Experiments reveal that the DSETNN out-performs DSET and provide encouraging results in terms of classification accuracy and the speed of learning convergence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural NetworksSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207