2005 International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering
DOI: 10.1109/nlpke.2005.1598832
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extending Dempster-Shafer Theory to Overcome Counter Intuitive Results

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The theory of evidence has been elaborated upon by a number of researchers [155,156,157,158,159,160,161], who have proposed original angles on the formalism [162,163,164,165] which later developed into proper frameworks [166,167,168,169,170,171]. We mention here a couple of significant examples.…”
Section: Framework and Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The theory of evidence has been elaborated upon by a number of researchers [155,156,157,158,159,160,161], who have proposed original angles on the formalism [162,163,164,165] which later developed into proper frameworks [166,167,168,169,170,171]. We mention here a couple of significant examples.…”
Section: Framework and Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the training data (5), (6), EM clustering [27] provides a fast and reliable method to automatically build feature-pose maps that can eventually be used for example-based pose estimation. Consider the N sequences of feature…”
Section: Learning Feature-to-pose Mapsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, work has been done on the issue of merging conflicting evidence [17,21,24,43], specially in critical situations in which the latter is derived from dependent sources [9]. Campos and de Souza [6] have presented a method for fusing highly conflicting evidence which overcomes well known counterintuitive results. Liu [25] has formally defined when two basic belief assignments are in conflict by means of quantitative measures of both the mass of the combined belief assigned to the emptyset before normalization, and the distance between betting commitments of beliefs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In particular, work has been done on the issue of merging conflicting evidence (Deutsch-McLeish, 1990;Josang et al, 2003;Lefevre et al, 2002;Wierman, 2001), especially in critical situations in which the latter is derived from dependent sources (Cattaneo, 2003). Campos and de Souza (2005) have presented a method for fusing highly conflicting evidence which overcomes well known counterintuitive results. Liu (2006) has formally defined when exactly two basic belief assignments are in conflict by means of quantitative measures of both the mass of the combined belief assigned to the empty set before normalization, and the distance between betting commitments of beliefs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%