Generalization of Dempster–Shafer theory: A complex belief function

# Generalization of Dempster–Shafer theory: A complex belief function

Fuyuan Xiao F. Xiao is with the School of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, No.2 Tiansheng Road, BeiBei District, Chongqing, 400715, China.
E-mail: xiaofuyuan@swu.edu.cn
###### Abstract

Dempster–Shafer evidence theory has been widely used in various fields of applications, because of the flexibility and effectiveness in modeling uncertainties without prior information. However, the existing evidence theory is insufficient to consider the situations where it has no capability to express the fluctuations of data at a given phase of time during their execution, and the uncertainty and imprecision which are inevitably involved in the data occur concurrently with changes to the phase or periodicity of the data. In this paper, therefore, a generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is proposed. To be specific, a mass function in the generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is modeled by a complex number, called as a complex basic belief assignment, which has more powerful ability to express uncertain information. Based on that, a generalized Dempster’s combination rule is exploited. In contrast to the classical Dempster’s combination rule, the condition in terms of the conflict coefficient between the evidences is released in the generalized Dempster’s combination rule. Hence, it is more general and applicable than the classical Dempster’s combination rule. When the complex mass function is degenerated from complex numbers to real numbers, the generalized Dempster’s combination rule degenerates to the classical evidence theory under the condition that the conflict coefficient between the evidences is less than 1. In a word, this generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory provides a promising way to model and handle more uncertain information.

Generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory, Complex basic belief assignment, Complex belief function, Complex number, Decision-making.

## I Introduction

How to measure the uncertainty has been an attracting issue in a variety of areas [1, 2, 3]. The amount of theories had been presented and developed for measuring the uncertainty, including the extended fuzzy sets [4, 5], fuzzy soft sets , evidence theory [7, 8], D numbers theory [9, 10], Z numbers [11, 12], R numbers [13, 14], entropy-based [15, 16], and information quality . These theories were broadly applied in various fields, such as the selection [18, 19], recognition , prediction , medical diagnosis , and decision-making [23, 24, 25].

As one of the most effective tools of uncertainty reasoning, Dempster–Shafer (DS) evidence theory [26, 27] can model the uncertainty without prior information in a flexible and effective manner [28, 29, 30]. The fusion results generated by Dempster’s combination rule are fault-tolerant which can be more sufficient and accurate to support the decision-making [31, 32], while the uncertainty can be characterized quantitatively and further be reduced in the process of combination [33, 34, 35]. Besides, the Dempster-Shafer theory satisfies the commutative and associative laws, so that it has been extensively applied in various fields [36, 37]. Nevertheless, through carefully studying the existing methods of evidence theory, it is found that none of these models have the capability to express the fluctuations of data at a given phase of time during their execution. Furthermore, in daily life, uncertainty and imprecision which are inevitably involved in the data occur concurrently with changes to the phase or periodicity of the data. As a result, the existing evidence theories are insufficient to consider these kinds of information, so that some information would loss during the model and process of data.

In this paper, therefore, a generalized Dempster–Shafer (GDS) evidence theory is proposed. To be specific, a mass function in the GDS evidence theory is modeled by a complex number, called as a complex mass function, which has more powerful ability to express uncertain information. On this basis, a generalized Dempster’s combination rule is exploited. Compared with the traditional Dempster’s combination rule, the condition in terms of the conflict coefficient between two evidences is released in the generalized Dempster’s combination rule. Hence, the proposed method is more general and applicable than the traditional Dempster’s combination rule. In particular, when the complex mass function is degenerated from complex numbers to real numbers, the generalized Dempster’s combination rule degenerates to the traditional evidence theory under the condition that the conflict coefficient between two evidences is less than 1. In this context, the GDS evidence theory provides a new framework to be more capable of modeling and handling the uncertainty. Meanwhile, several numerical examples are provided to illustrate the feasibility of the GDS evidence theory. Additionally, an algorithm for decision-making is devised based on the GDS evidence theory. Finally, an application of the new algorithm is implemented to solve the medical diagnosis problem. The results validate the practicability and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

The rest of this paper is organised as follows. The preliminaries, including complex number and Dempster–Shafer evidence theory are briefly introduced in Section II. The new GDS evidence theory is proposed in Section III. Section IV provides numerical examples to illustrate the feasibility of the GDS evidence theory. Finally, the conclusion is given in Section V.

## Ii Preliminaries

### Ii-a Complex number 

A complex number is defined as an ordered pair of real numbers

 z=x+yi, (1)

where and are real numbers and is the imaginary unit, satisfying . This is called the “rectangular” form or “Cartesian” form.

It can also expressed in polar form, denoted by

 z=reiθ, (2)

where represents the modulus or magnitude of the complex number and represents the angle or phase of the complex number .

By using the Euler’s relation,

 eiθ=cos(θ)+isin(θ), (3)

the modulus or magnitude and angle or phase of the complex number can be expressed as

 r=√x2+y2, and θ=arctan(yx)=tan−1(yx), (4)

where and .

The square of the absolute value is defined by

 |z|2=z¯z=x2+y2, (5)

where is the complex conjugate of , i.e., .

These relationships can be then obtained as

 r=|z|, and θ=∠z, (6)

where if is a real number (i.e., ), then .

The arithmetic of complex numbers is defined as follows:

Give two complex numbers and , the addition is defined by

 z1+z2=(x1+y1i)+(x2+y2i)=(x1+x2)+(y1+y2)i. (7)

The subtraction is defined by

 z1−z2=(x1+y1i)−(x2+y2i)=(x1−x2)+(y1−y2)i. (8)

The multiplication is defined by

 (x1+y1i)(x2+y2i)=(x1x2−y1y2)+(x1y2+x2y1)i. (9)

The division is defined by

 x1+y1ix2+y2i=x1x2+y1y2x22+y22+x2y1−x1y2x22+y22i. (10)

### Ii-B Dempster–Shafer evidence theory [26, 27]

Uncertain information is inevitable in practical applications [39, 40, 41]. To handle the uncertainty problems in the process of information fusion, many integrated methods have been presented in recent years [42, 43, 44], in which Dempster–Shafer (DS) evidence theory is very common used in the real applications [45, 46, 47]. The basic concepts and definitions are described as below.

###### Definition 1

(Frame of discernment)

Let be a set of mutually exclusive and collective non-empty events, defined by

 Ω={F1,F2,…,Fi,…,FN}, (11)

where is a frame of discernment .

The power set of is denoted as ,

 2Ω={∅,{F1},{F2},…,{FN},{F1,F2},…,{F1, (12) F2,…,Fi},…,Ω},

where represents an empty set.

If , is called a proposition .

###### Definition 2

(Mass function)

A mass function in the frame of discernment can be described as a mapping from to [0, 1], defined as

 m:2Ω→[0,1], (13)

satisfying the following conditions,

 m(∅) =0, and ∑A∈2Ωm(A) =1. (14)

In the DS evidence theory, can also be called a basic belief assignment (BBA). If is greater than zero, where , is called a focal element. The value of represents how strongly the evidence supports the proposition  [50, 51].

###### Definition 3

(Belief function)

Let be a proposition in the frame of discernment . The belief function of proposition , denoted as is defined by

 Bel(A)=∑B⊆Am(B). (15)
###### Definition 4

(Plausibility function)

Let be a proposition in the frame of discernment . The plausibility function of proposition , denoted as is defined by

 Pl(A)=∑B∩A≠∅m(B). (16)

The belief function and plausibility function represent the lower and upper bound functions of the proposition , respectively [52, 53, 54]. The value of represents how strongly the evidence supports the proposition  . Various operations on the BBA are presented, like negation [56, 57], belief interval [58, 59], divergence , and entropy function [61, 62, 63].

###### Definition 5

(Dempster’s rule of combination)

Let and be two independent basic belief assignments (BBAs) in the frame of discernment . The Dempster’s rule of combination, denoted as is defined by

 (17)

with

 K=∑A∩B=∅m1(A)m2(B), (18)

where and is the conflict coefficient between and .

Notice that the Dempster’s combination rule is only feasible under the situation where the conflict coefficient for and  [64, 65]. As an useful uncertainty processing methodology [66, 67, 68], DS evidence theory was widely applied in various areas, like reasoning [69, 70], reliability evaluation [71, 72], fault diagnosis , decision-making [74, 75], and classification [76, 77].

## Iii Generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory

Let be a set of mutually exclusive and collective non-empty events, defined by

 Ω={E1,E2,…,Ei,…,EN}, (19)

where represents a frame of discernment.

The power set of is denoted by , in which

 2Ω={∅,{E1},{E2},…,{EN},{E1,E2},…,{E1, (20) E2,…,Ei},…,Ω},

and is an empty set.

###### Definition 6

(Complex mass function)

A complex mass function in the frame of discernment is modeled as a complex number, which is represented as a mapping from to , defined by

 \mathdsM:2Ω→C, (21)

satisfying the following conditions,

 \mathdsM(∅)=0, (22) \mathdsM(A)=m(A)eiθ(A),A∈2Ω ∑A∈2Ω\mathdsM(A)=1,

where ; representing the magnitude of the complex mass function ; denoting a phase term.

In Eq. (22), can also expressed in the “rectangular” form or “Cartesian” form, denoted by

 \mathdsM(A)=x+yi,A∈2Ω (23)

with

 √x2+y2∈[0,1]. (24)

By using the Euler’s relation, the magnitude and phase of the complex mass function can be expressed as

 m(A)=√x2+y2, and θ(A)=arctan(yx), (25)

where and .

The square of the absolute value for is defined by

 |\mathdsM(A)|2=\mathdsM(A)\mathds¯M(A)=x2+y2, (26)

where is the complex conjugate of , such that .

These relationships can be then obtained as

 m(A)=|\mathdsM(A)|, and θ(A)=∠\mathdsM(A), (27)

where if is a real number (i.e., ), then .

The complex mass function modeled as a complex number in the generalized Dempster–Shafer (GDS) evidence theory can also be called a complex basic belief assignment (CBBA).

If is greater than zero, where , is called a focal element of the complex mass function. The value of represents how strongly the evidence supports the proposition .

###### Definition 7

(Complex belief function)

Let be a proposition in the frame of discernment . The complex belief function of proposition , denoted as is defined by

 Belc(A)=∑B⊆A|\mathdsM(B)|, (28)

where represents the absolute value of .

###### Definition 8

(Complex plausibility function)

Let be a proposition in the frame of discernment . The complex plausibility function of proposition , denoted as is defined by

 Plc(A)=∑B∩A≠∅|\mathdsM(B)|, (29)

where represents the absolute value of .

Obviously, we can notice that , in which the complex belief function is the lower bound function of proposition , and the complex plausibility function is the upper bound function of proposition .

###### Definition 9

(Generalized Dempster’s rule of combination)

Let and be two independently complex basic belief assignments (CBBAs) in the frame of discernment . The generalized Dempster’s rule of combination, defined by , which is called the orthogonal sum, is represented as below

 (30)

with

 \mathdsK=∑A∩B=∅\mathdsM1(A)\mathdsM2(B), (31)

where and is the conflict coefficient between the CBBAs and .

###### Remark 1

The generalized Dempster’s combination rule is only feasible under the situation where the conflict coefficient for and .

###### Remark 2

Compared with the traditional Dempster’s combination rule, the condition in terms of the conflict coefficient is released in the generalized Dempster’s combination rule so that it is more general and applicable than the traditional Dempster’s combination rule.

###### Remark 3

When the complex mass function is degenerated from complex numbers to real numbers, the generalized Dempster’s combination rule degenerates to the traditional evidence theory under the condition that the conflict coefficient .

An example is given to illustrate that the condition is released in the generalized Dempster’s combination rule, where the variation of the magnitude of conflict coefficient between two CBBAs is depicted. Note that can be calculated based on Eq. (27).

###### Example 1

Supposing that there are two CBBAs and in the frame of discernment , and the two CBBAs are given as follows:

 \mathdsM1: \mathdsM1(A)=√x2+y2eiarctan(yx), \mathdsM1(B)=√(1−x)2+(−y)2eiarctan(−y1−x); \mathdsM2: \mathdsM2(A)=√0.52+0.52eiarctan(0.50.5), \mathdsM2(B)=√0.52+(−0.5)2eiarctan(−0.50.5).

Since and , according to Definition 6, the parameters is set within and is set within satisfying the conditions that and at the same time, where the variations of parameters and are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the results of the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and from different angles.

In particular, as shown in Fig. 2, in the case that and , we can obtain that

 \mathdsM1(A)=1eiarctan(0)=1, \mathdsM1(B)=0eiarctan(0)=0.

The conflict coefficient is calculated as

 \mathdsK=1×√0.5eiarctan(−1)+0×√0.5eiarctan(1).

Then, the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and is 0.7071.

When and , it is obtained that

 \mathdsM1(A) =0eiarctan(0)=0, \mathdsM1(B) =1eiarctan(0)=1.

The conflict coefficient is calculated as

 \mathdsK=0×√0.5eiarctan(−1)+1×√0.5eiarctan(1).

Then, the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and is calculated by

 |\mathdsK|=0.7071,

which shows the same result as the case that and .

In the case that and , we can obtain that

 \mathdsM1(A)=1eiarctan(−0.86600.5)=1eiarctan(−1.7320), \mathdsM1(B)=1eiarctan(0.86600.5)=1eiarctan(1.7320).

The conflict coefficient is calculated as

 \mathdsK= 1eiarctan(−1.7320)×√0.5eiarctan(−1)+ 1eiarctan(1.7320)×√0.5eiarctan(1).

Then, the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and is calculated by

 |\mathdsK|=0.3660.

In the case that and , we can obtain that

 \mathdsM1(A) =√0.5eiarctan(−1), \mathdsM1(B) =√0.5eiarctan(1).

The conflict coefficient is calculated as

 \mathdsK= √0.5eiarctan(−1)×√0.5eiarctan(−1)+ √0.5eiarctan(1)×√0.5eiarctan(1).

Then, the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and is calculated by

 |\mathdsK|=0.

When and , it is obtained that

 \mathdsM1(A) =1eiarctan(0.86600.5)=1eiarctan(1.7320), \mathdsM1(B) =1eiarctan(−0.86600.5)=1eiarctan(−1.7320).

The conflict coefficient is calculated as

 \mathdsK= 1eiarctan(1.7320)×√0.5eiarctan(−1)+ 1eiarctan(−1.7320)×√0.5eiarctan(1).

Then, the magnitude of conflict coefficient between the two CBBAs and is calculated by

 |\mathdsK|=1.3660.

## Iv Numerical examples

In this section, several numerical examples are illustrated to show the effectiveness of the generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory.

###### Example 2

Supposing that there are two CBBAs and in the frame of discernment , and the two CBBAs are given as follows:

 \mathdsM1: \mathdsM1(A)=0.2031eiarctan(−1.7678), \mathdsM1(B)=0.7842eiarctan(0.5051), \mathdsM1(A,B)=0.2669eiarctan(−0.8839); \mathdsM2: \mathdsM2(A)=0.3606eiarctan(3.4641), \mathdsM2(B)=0.6245eiarctan(0.2887), \mathdsM2(A,B)=0.6000eiarctan(−1.7321).

Then, the fusing results are calculated by utilising Eq. (30) as follows:

 \mathdsM(A)=0.0997eiarctan(0.1900)=0.0979+0.0186i, \mathdsM(B)=0.9213eiarctan(−0.2015)=0.9031−0.1820i, \mathdsM(A,B)=0.1634eiarctan(−163.4)=−0.0010+0.1634i.

It is verified that + + = 1 in this example.

###### Example 3

Supposing that there are two CBBAs and in the frame of discernment , and the two CBBAs are given as follows:

 \mathdsM1: \mathdsM1(A)=0.3606eiarctan(3.4641), \mathdsM1(B)=0.6245eiarctan(0.2887), \mathdsM1(A,B)=0.6000eiarctan(−1.7321);
 \mathdsM2: \mathdsM2(A)=0.2031eiarctan(−1.7678), \mathdsM2(B)=0.7842eiarctan(0.5051), \mathdsM2(A,B)=0.2669eiarctan(−0.8839).

The fusing results by utilising Eq. (30) are calculated as follows:

 \mathdsM(A)=0.0997eiarctan(0.1900)=0.0979+0.0186i, \mathdsM(B)=0.9213eiarctan(−0.2015)=0.9031−0.1820i, \mathdsM(A,B)=0.1634eiarctan(−163.4)=−0.0010+0.1634i.

It is obvious that + + = 1 in this example.

Through Example 2 and Example 3, it verifies that the generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory satisfies the commutative law.

###### Example 4

Supposing that there are two CBBAs and in the frame of discernment where they are degenerated to real numbers, and the two CBBAs are given as follows:

 \mathdsM1: \mathdsM1(A)=0.8, \mathdsM1(B)=0.2; \mathdsM2: \mathdsM2(A)=0.9, \mathdsM2(B)=0.1.

On the one hand, by utilising Eq. (30) of the generalized Dempster’s rule of combination, the fusing results are generated as follows:

 \mathdsM(A)=0.9730, \mathdsM(B)=0.0270;

On the other hand, based on Eq. (17) of the classical Dempster’s rule of combination, the fusing results are calculated as follows:

 \mathdsM(A)=0.9730, \mathdsM(B)=0.0270;

It is easy to see that the fusing results from the generalized Dempster’s rule of combination is exactly the same as the fusing results from the classical Dempster’s rule of combination. In this example, the conflict coefficient is 0.2600.

This example verifies that when the complex mass function is degenerated from complex numbers to real numbers, the generalized Dempster’s combination rule degenerates to the classical evidence theory under the condition that the conflict coefficient between the evidences is less than 1.

## V Conclusions

In this paper, a generalized Dempster–Shafer (GDS) evidence theory is proposed. The main contribution of this study is that a mass function in the GDS evidence theory is modeled as a complex number, called as a complex basic belief assignment. In addition, the definitions of complex belief function and complex plausibility function are also presented in this paper. Based on that, a generalized Dempster’s rule of combination is exploited to fuse the complex basic belief assignments. When the complex mass function is degenerated from complex numbers to real numbers, the GDS evidence theory degenerates to the traditional evidence theory under the condition that the conflict coefficient between the evidences is less than 1. In summary, this study is the first work to generalize the evidence theory in the framework of complex numbers. It provides a promising way to model and handle more uncertain information in the process of solving the decision-making problems.

## Acknowledgment

This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. XDJK2019C085) and Chongqing Overseas Scholars Innovation Program (No. cx2018077).

## References

•  R. R. Yager, “On using the shapley value to approximate the Choquet integral in cases of uncertain arguments,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1303–1310, 2018.
•  E. K. Zavadskas, J. Antucheviciene, S. H. R. Hajiagha, and S. S. Hashemi, “Extension of weighted aggregated sum product assessment with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (WASPAS-IVIF),” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 24, pp. 1013–1021, 2014.
•  C. Fu, W. Liu, and W. Chang, “Data-driven multiple criteria decision making for diagnosis of thyroid cancer,” Annals of Operations Research, pp. 1–30, 2018.
•  L. Fei, “On interval-valued fuzzy decision-making using soft likelihood functions,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 2019.
•  F. Xiao and W. Ding, “Divergence measure of Pythagorean fuzzy sets and its application in medical diagnosis,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 79, pp. 254–267, 2019.
•  F. Feng, J. Cho, W. Pedrycz, H. Fujita, and T. Herawan, “Soft set based association rule mining,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 111, pp. 268–282, 2016.
•  R. Sun and Y. Deng, “A new method to identify incomplete frame of discernment in evidence theory,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 15 547–15 555, 2019.
•  W. Jiang, “A correlation coefficient for belief functions,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 103, pp. 94–106, 2018.
•  J. Zhao and Y. Deng, “Performer selection in Human Reliability analysis: D numbers approach,” International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 521–536, 2019.
•  X. Deng and W. Jiang, “D number theory based game-theoretic framework in adversarial decision making under a fuzzy environment,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 106, pp. 194–213, 2019.
•  W. Jiang, Y. Cao, and X. Deng, “A Novel Z-network Model Based on Bayesian Network and Z-number,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 2019.
•  B. Kang, P. Zhang, Z. Gao, G. Chhipi-Shrestha, K. Hewage, and R. Sadiq, “Environmental assessment under uncertainty using Dempster–Shafer theory and Z-numbers,” Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, pp. DOI: 10.1007/s12 652–019–01 228–y, 2019.
•  H. Seiti, A. Hafezalkotob, and L. Martínez, “R-numbers, a new risk modeling associated with fuzzy numbers and its application to decision making,” Information Sciences, vol. 483, pp. 206–231, 2019.
•  H. Seiti and A. Hafezalkotob, “Developing the R-TOPSIS methodology for risk-based preventive maintenance planning: A case study in rolling mill company,” Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 128, pp. 622–636, 2019.
•  Z. Cao and C. T. Lin, “Inherent fuzzy entropy for the improvement of EEG complexity evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1032–1035, 2018.
•  Q. Wang, Y. Li, and X. Liu, “Analysis of feature fatigue EEG signals based on wavelet entropy,” International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 08, p. 1854023, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager and F. E. Petry, “Using quality measures in the intelligent fusion of probabilistic information,” in Information Quality in Information Fusion and Decision Making.   Springer, 2019, pp. 51–77.
•  H. Seiti, A. Hafezalkotob, and R. Fattahi, “Extending a pessimistic–optimistic fuzzy information axiom based approach considering acceptable risk: Application in the selection of maintenance strategy,” Applied Soft Computing, vol. 67, pp. 895–909, 2018.
•  X. Deng and W. Jiang, “Evaluating green supply chain management practices under fuzzy environment: a novel method based on D number theory,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, pp. DOI: 10.1007/s40 815–019–00 639–5, 2019.
•  J. Geng, X. Ma, X. Zhou, and H. Wang, “Saliency-guided deep neural networks for SAR image change detection,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, pp. 1–13, 2019.
•  D. Zhou, A. Al-Durra, K. Zhang, A. Ravey, and F. Gao, “A robust prognostic indicator for renewable energy technologies: A novel error correction grey prediction model,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, p. DOI: 10.1109/TIE.2019.2893867, 2019.
•  Z. Cao, C.-T. Lin, K.-L. Lai, L.-W. Ko, J.-T. King, K.-K. Liao, J.-L. Fuh, and S.-J. Wang, “Extraction of SSVEPs-based inherent fuzzy entropy using a wearable headband EEG in migraine patients,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, p. DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2905823, 2019.
•  F. Xiao, “A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 71, no. 2018, pp. 216–225, 2018.
•  F. Feng, H. Fujita, M. I. Ali, R. R. Yager, and X. Liu, “Another view on generalized intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and related multiattribute decision making methods,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 474–488, 2018.
•  F. Xiao, “A multiple criteria decision-making method based on D numbers and belief entropy,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1144–1153, 2019.
•  A. P. Dempster, “Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping,” Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 325–339, 1967.
•  G. Shafer et al., A mathematical theory of evidence.   Princeton University Press Princeton, 1976, vol. 1.
•  X. Deng, W. Jiang, and Z. Wang, “Zero-sum polymatrix games with link uncertainty: A Dempster-Shafer theory solution,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 340, pp. 101–112, 2019.
•  X. Su, L. Li, H. Qian, M. Sankaran, and Y. Deng, “A new rule to combine dependent bodies of evidence,” Soft Computing, pp. DOI: 10.1007/s00 500–019–03 804–y, 2019.
•  R. R. Yager, P. Elmore, and F. Petry, “Soft likelihood functions in combining evidence,” Information Fusion, vol. 36, pp. 185–190, 2017.
•  X. Su, L. Li, F. Shi, and H. Qian, “Research on the fusion of dependent evidence based on mutual information,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 71 839–71 845, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager, “Satisfying uncertain targets using measure generalized Dempster-Shafer belief structures,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 142, pp. 1–6, 2018.
•  H. Seiti, A. Hafezalkotob, S. Najafi, and M. Khalaj, “A risk-based fuzzy evidential framework for FMEA analysis under uncertainty: An interval-valued DS approach,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, no. Preprint, pp. 1–12, 2018.
•  F. Xiao, “A hybrid fuzzy soft sets decision making method in medical diagnosis,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 25 300–25 312, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager, “Generalized Dempster–Shafer structures,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 428–435, 2019.
•  Z. He and W. Jiang, “An evidential Markov decision making model,” Information Sciences, vol. 467, pp. 357–372, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager, “Fuzzy rule bases with generalized belief structure inputs,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 72, pp. 93–98, 2018.
•  M. J. Ablowitz and A. S. Fokas, Complex variables: introduction and applications.   Cambridge University Press, 2003.
•  E. K. Zavadskas, R. Bausys, B. Juodagalviene, and I. Garnyte-Sapranaviciene, “Model for residential house element and material selection by neutrosophic MULTIMOORA method,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 64, pp. 315–324, 2017.
•  M. Zhou, X.-B. Liu, Y.-W. Chen, and J.-B. Yang, “Evidential reasoning rule for MADM with both weights and reliabilities in group decision making,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 143, pp. 142–161, 2018.
•  V. H. C. de Albuquerque, T. M. Nunes, D. R. Pereira, E. J. d. S. Luz, D. Menotti, J. P. Papa, and J. M. R. Tavares, “Robust automated cardiac arrhythmia detection in ECG beat signals,” Neural Computing and Applications, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 679–693, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager, “Multi-criteria decision making with interval criteria satisfactions using the golden rule representative value,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 1023–1031, 2018.
•  F. Feng, M. Liang, H. Fujita, R. R. Yager, and X. Liu, “Lexicographic orders of intuitionistic fuzzy values and their relationships,” Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1–26, 2019.
•  X. Wang and Y. Song, “Uncertainty measure in evidence theory with its applications,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 1672–1688, 2018.
•  Y. Li and Y. Deng, “Generalized ordered propositions fusion based on belief entropy,” International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 792–807, 2018.
•  Z. Liu, Q. Pan, J. Dezert, J.-W. Han, and Y. He, “Classifier fusion with contextual reliability evaluation,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1605–1618, 2018.
•  Y. Gong, X. Su, H. Qian, and N. Yang, “Research on fault diagnosis methods for the reactor coolant system of nuclear power plant based on D-S evidence theory,” Annals of Nuclear Energy, pp. 395–399, 2018.
•  W. Jiang, C. Huang, and X. Deng, “A new probability transformation method based on a correlation coefficient of belief functions,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, pp. In press, DOI: 10.1002/int.22 098, 2019.
•  F. Xiao, “Multi-sensor data fusion based on the belief divergence measure of evidences and the belief entropy,” Information Fusion, vol. 46, no. 2019, pp. 23–32, 2019.
•  W. Zhang and Y. Deng, “Combining conflicting evidence using the DEMATEL method,” Soft Computing, pp. DOI: 10.1007/s00 500–018–3455–8, 2018.
•  R. Sun and Y. Deng, “A new method to determine generalized basic probability assignment in the open world,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 52 827–52 835, 2019.
•  J. Dezert, A. Tchamova, and D. Han, “Total belief theorem and conditional belief functions,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 2314–2340, 2018.
•  Z. He and W. Jiang, “An evidential dynamical model to predict the interference effect of categorization on decision making results,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 150, pp. 139–149, 2018.
•  Y. Li and Y. Deng, “TDBF: Two Dimension Belief Function,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 34, p. DOI: 10.1002/int.22135, 2019.
•  R. R. Yager, “Entailment for measure based belief structures,” Information Fusion, vol. 47, pp. 111–116, 2019.
•  X. Gao and Y. Deng, “The negation of basic probability assignment,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. 1, p. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2901932, 2019.
•  ——, “The generalization negation of probability distribution and its application in target recognition based on sensor fusion,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 15, no. 5, p. DOI: 10.1177/1550147719849381, 2019.
•  D. Han, J. Dezert, and Y. Yang, “Belief interval-based distance measures in the theory of belief functions,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 833–850, 2016.
•  Y. Song, X. Wang, L. Lei, and S. Yue, “Uncertainty measure for interval-valued belief structures,” Measurement, vol. 80, pp. 241–250, 2016.
•  Y. Song and Y. Deng, “A new method to measure the divergence in evidential sensor data fusion,” International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 15, no. 4, p. DOI: 10.1177/1550147719841295, 2019.
•  H. Cui, Q. Liu, J. Zhang, and B. Kang, “An improved deng entropy and its application in pattern recognition,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 18 284–18 292, 2019.
•  R. R. Yager, “Entropy and specificity in a mathematical theory of evidence,” in Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions.   Springer, 2008, pp. 291–310.
•  Y. Dong, J. Zhang, Z. Li, Y. Hu, and Y. Deng, “Combination of evidential sensor reports with distance function and belief entropy in fault diagnosis,” International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 293–307, 2019.
•  Z.-G. Liu, Q. Pan, J. Dezert, and A. Martin, “Combination of classifiers with optimal weight based on evidential reasoning,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 1217–1230, 2018.
•  H. Zhang and Y. Deng, “ Engine fault diagnosis based on sensor data fusion considering information quality and evidence theory,” Advances in Mechanical Engineering, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1–10, 2018.
•  R. R. Yager and N. Alajlan, “Maxitive belief structures and imprecise possibility distributions,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 768–774, 2017.
•  H. Xu and Y. Deng, “Dependent Evidence Combination Based on DEMATEL Method,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, p. DOI: 10.1002/int.22107, 2019.
•  Z. Huang, L. Yang, and W. Jiang, “Uncertainty measurement with belief entropy on the interference effect in the quantum-like Bayesian Networks,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 347, pp. 417–428, 2019.
•  M. Zhou, X.-B. Liu, J.-B. Yang, Y.-W. Chen, and J. Wu, “Evidential reasoning approach with multiple kinds of attributes and entropy-based weight assignment,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 163, pp. 358–375, 2019.
•  C. Fu, W. Chang, M. Xue, and S. Yang, “Multiple criteria group decision making with belief distributions and distributed preference relations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 273, no. 2, pp. 623–633, 2019.
•  Y. Song, X. Wang, J. Zhu, and L. Lei, “Sensor dynamic reliability evaluation based on evidence theory and intuitionistic fuzzy sets,” Applied Intelligence, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 3950–3962, 2018.
•  C.-l. Fan, Y. Song, L. Lei, X. Wang, and S. Bai, “Evidence reasoning for temporal uncertain information based on relative reliability evaluation,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 113, pp. 264–276, 2018.
•  H. Zhang and Y. Deng, “Weighted belief function of sensor data fusion in engine fault diagnosis,” Soft Computing, pp. DOI: 10.1007/s00 500–019–04 063–7, 2019.
•  M. Zhou, X. Liu, and J. Yang, “Evidential reasoning approach for MADM based on incomplete interval value,” Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 3707–3721, 2017.
•  J. Dezert, D. Han, J.-M. Tacnet, S. Carladous, and Y. Yang, “Decision-making with belief interval distance,” in International Conference on Belief Functions.   Springer, 2016, pp. 66–74.
•  Z. Liu, Y. Liu, J. Dezert, and F. Cuzzolin, “Evidence combination based on credal belief redistribution for pattern classification,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, p. DOI: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2911915, 2019.
•  Z.-g. Liu, Z. Zhang, Y. Liu, J. Dezert, and Q. Pan, “A new pattern classification improvement method with local quality matrix based on K-NN,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 164, pp. 336–347, 2019.
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
• Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
• Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
• Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters   