Conflict Management Method Based on a New Belief Divergence in Evidence Theory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly conflicting evidence that may lead to the counter-intuitive results is one of the challenges for information fusion in Dempster-Shafer evidence theory. To deal with this issue, evidence conflict is investigated based on belief divergence measuring the discrepancy between evidence. In this paper, the pignistic probability transform belief χ2 divergence, named as BBχ2 divergence, is proposed. By introducing the pignistic probability transform, the proposed BBχ2 divergence can accurately quantify the difference between evidence with the consideration of multi-element sets. Compared with a few belief divergences, the novel divergence has more precision. Based on this advantageous divergence, a new multi-source information fusion method is devised. The proposed method considers both credibility weights and information volume weights to determine the overall weight of each evidence. Eventually, the proposed method is applied in target recognition and fault diagnosis, in which comparative analysis indicates that the proposed method can realize the highest accuracy for managing evidence conflict.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it