
TL;DR
This paper extends previous work on partitioning nonspecific evidence within Dempster-Shafer theory by specifying the potential event references for each piece of evidence and developing methods to handle false or less credible evidence.
Contribution
It introduces a new methodology to specify evidence to particular events and to incorporate falsity and credibility assessments into reasoning processes.
Findings
Developed a method to specify evidence to potential events.
Created a technique to assess evidence falsity and credibility.
Enhanced reasoning by discounting evidence based on these assessments.
Abstract
In an earlier article [J. Schubert, On nonspecific evidence, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 8(6), 711-725 (1993)] we established within Dempster-Shafer theory a criterion function called the metaconflict function. With this criterion we can partition into subsets a set of several pieces of evidence with propositions that are weakly specified in the sense that it may be uncertain to which event a proposition is referring. Each subset in the partitioning is representing a separate event. The metaconflict function was derived as the plausibility that the partitioning is correct when viewing the conflict in Dempster's rule within each subset as a newly constructed piece of metalevel evidence with a proposition giving support against the entire partitioning. In this article we extend the results of the previous article. We will not only find the most plausible subset for each piece of evidence as was…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
