Scribd
Upload
110 views

Dempster Shafer Theory

Dempster-Shafer Theory is an approach to combining evidence from different sources to determine the probability of possible conclusions. It allows for the probability of a conclusion and its negation to not sum to 1, and both to have a probability of 0, meaning there is no evidence for or against that conclusion. The theory uses a frame of discernment containing all possible mutually exclusive conclusions. A mass function assigns probabilities between 0 and 1 to every subset of the frame of discernment based on the evidence, with all probabilities summing to 1.

Uploaded by

Natraj Pixel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
110 views

Dempster Shafer Theory

Dempster-Shafer Theory is an approach to combining evidence from different sources to determine the probability of possible conclusions. It allows for the probability of a conclusion and its negation to not sum to 1, and both to have a probability of 0, meaning there is no evidence for or against that conclusion. The theory uses a frame of discernment containing all possible mutually exclusive conclusions. A mass function assigns probabilities between 0 and 1 to every subset of the frame of discernment based on the evidence, with all probabilities summing to 1.

Uploaded by

Natraj Pixel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Dempster-Shafer Theory

• Dempster-Shafer theory is an approach to combining


evidence
• Dempster (1967) developed means for combining
degrees of belief derived from independent items of
evidence.
• His student, Glenn Shafer (1976), developed method
for obtaining degrees of belief for one question from
subjective probabilities for a related question
• People working in Expert Systems in the 1980s saw
their approach as ideally suitable for such systems.
• Each fact has a degree of support, between 0 and 1:
– 0 No support for the fact
– 1 full support for the fact
• Differs from Bayesian approach in that:
– Belief in a fact and its negation need not sum to 1.
– Both values can be 0 (meaning no evidence for or
against the fact)
Set of possible conclusions: Θ
Θ = { θ1 , θ2 , …, θn } Where:
– Θ is the set of possible conclusions to be drawn
– Each θi is mutually exclusive: at most one has to be
true.
– Θ is Exhaustive: At least one θi has to be true.
Frame of discernment :
Θ = { θ1 , θ2 , …, θn }
• Bayes was concerned with evidence that
supported single conclusions (e.g., evidence for
each outcome θi in Θ):
• p(θi | E)
• D-S Theoryis concerned with evidences which
support subsets of outcomes in Θ,
e.g., θ1 v θ2 v θ3 or {θ1 , θ2 , θ3 }
• The “frame of discernment” (or “Power set”) of Θ
is the set of all possible subsets of Θ: – E.g., if Θ
= { θ1 , θ2 , θ3 }
• Then the frame of discernment of Θ is: ( Ø, θ1 ,
θ2 , θ3 , {θ1 , θ2 }, {θ1 , θ3 }, {θ2 , θ3 }, { θ1 , θ2
, θ3 } )
• Ø, the empty set, has a probability of 0, since one
of the outcomes has to be true.
• Each of the other elements in the power set has a
probability between 0 and 1.
• The probability of { θ1 , θ2 , θ3 } is 1.0 since one
has to be true.
Mass function m(A):
(where A is a member of the power set)
• “The mass m(A) of a given member of the power set, A,
expresses the proportion of all relevant and available evidence
that supports the claim that the actual state belongs to A but to no
particular subset of A.”

• “The value of m(A) pertains only to the set A and makes no


additional claims about any subsets of A, each of which has, by
definition, its own mass.
• Each m(A) is between 0 and 1.
• All m(A) sum to 1.
• m(Ø) is 0 - at least one must be true.
Mass function m(A): example
• 4 people (B, J, S and K) are locked in a room when
the lights go out.
• When the lights come on, K is dead, stabbed
with a knife.
• Not suicide (stabbed in the back)
• No-one entered the room.
• Assume only one killer.
Θ = { B, J, S}
P(Θ) = (Ø, {B}, {J}, {S}, {B,J}, {B,S}, {J,S},
{B,J,S} )
• Detectives, after reviewing the crime-scene,
assign mass probabilities to various elements
of the power set: No-one is guilty 0 One of the
3 is guilty 0.1 either S or J is guilty 0.3

You might also like