2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.02.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the fusion of imprecise uncertainty measures using belief structures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this context, a nonprobabilistic uncertainty representation method, the Belief Function Theory (BFT) [14,35], has been adopted for uncertainty representation given its capability of representing very limited knowledge [5,17,41]. If we consider, for example, an extreme case, in which the only information available on the equipment RUL is that it will fail in the time interval as it has been shown in [46], this assignment causes the paradox that it assigns a precise probability value to an event such as "RUL in the interval…”
Section: Direct Rul Prediction: Similarity-based Rul Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In this context, a nonprobabilistic uncertainty representation method, the Belief Function Theory (BFT) [14,35], has been adopted for uncertainty representation given its capability of representing very limited knowledge [5,17,41]. If we consider, for example, an extreme case, in which the only information available on the equipment RUL is that it will fail in the time interval as it has been shown in [46], this assignment causes the paradox that it assigns a precise probability value to an event such as "RUL in the interval…”
Section: Direct Rul Prediction: Similarity-based Rul Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, in order to perform the aggregation, we resort to the extension of the BFT to the continuous real axis  [35], which allows transforming the belief functions into belief densities. Then, using the least commitment principle, the RUL pdf predicted by the GPR method is transformed into a belief density function and, finally, the Dempster's rule of combination is applied to aggregate the BBAs provided by the similarity-based approach and the GPR method [2,32,46]. The remaining part of the paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, we briefly state the prognostic problem of interest; Section 3 describes the method for performing RUL predictions based on GPR; in Section 4, the methodology for providing prediction intervals for the RUL value based on the SBR method in the framework of BFT is described; in Section 5 a BFT-based technique for aggregating the outcomes of the GPR and SBR approaches is proposed; Section 6 presents the results of the numerical application of these methods to the prediction of the RUL for clogging filters; finally, in Section 7 we state our conclusions and suggest some potential future works.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Concretely, in a GDM problem, we have a set of options to solve the problem and a set of experts, who are usually required to provide their preferences for the options by means of a particular preference format. At this time, the preference information provided by decision makers can be expressed in multiple formats, such as utility values, multiplicative preference relations, fuzzy preference relations, linguistic variables, interval numbers, and preference rankings or ranking ordinals (Chiclana et al 2013;Ma 2010;Wang et al 2005;Guo and Wang 2012;Yager 2011;Angiz et al 2012;Frini et al 2012;Lodwick and Jamison 2008;Tavares 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the approaches of González-Pachón et al (2003), González-Pachón and Romero (2001, 2011), Wang et al (2005, and Fan et al (2010) are based on total order or partial order preference, and do not consider lattice-ordered preference or the DM's behavior.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other side, there are other techniques such as DSTE and Possibility Theory (see [5]- [8], [13]- [16], [18], [21], [23], [38], [40], [45], [46], for detailed surveys and comparisons) which are emerging to be more appropriate in describing epistemic uncertainty, though they have never been adopted in Markov models (as pointed out in [37]) nor in other models of the degradation mechanisms ( [4]). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%