Complex Evidence Theory for Multisource Data Fusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data fusion is a prevalent technique for assembling imperfect raw data coming from multiple sources to capture reliable and accurate information. Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is one of useful methodologies in the fusion of uncertain multisource information. The existing literature lacks a thorough and comprehensive review of the recent advances of Dempster– Shafer evidence theory for data fusion. Therefore, the state of the art has to be surveyed to gain insight into how Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is beneficial for data fusion and how it evolved over time. In this paper, we first provide a comprehensive review of data fusion methods based on Dempster–Shafer evidence theory and its extensions, collectively referred to as classical evidence theory, from three aspects of uncertainty modeling, fusion, and decision making. Next, we study and explore complex evidence theory for data fusion in both closed world and open world contexts that benefits from the frame of complex plane modelling. We then present classical and complex evidence theory framework-based multisource data fusion algorithms, which are applied to pattern classification to compare and demonstrate their applicabilities. The research results indicate that the complex evidence theory framework can enhance the capabilities of uncertainty modeling and reasoning by generating constructive interference through the fusion of appropriate complex basic belief assignment functions modeled by complex numbers. Through analysis and comparison, we finally propose several challenges and identify open future research directions in evidence theorybased data fusion.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".