Target Classification Using PAS and Evidence Theory

Abstract:

This paper presents a novel Dempster-Shafer evidence construction approach for aircraft aim recognition. The prior-probability of the properties of aircraft was used for establishing a probabilistic argumentation system. Dempster-Shafer evidence was constructed by assumption-based reasoning. Therefore, additional information could be provided to the classification of the data fusion system. Experiments on artificial and real data demonstrated that the proposed method could improve the classification results.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 347-350)
• Pages: 3728-3733
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.347-350.3728
• Online since: August 2013
• Authors: Li Jia, Hai Yan, Guo Hui Li, Hui Zhang
• Keywords: Dempster-Shafer Theory, Probabilistic Argumenta-Tion System (PAS), Target Classification

References

[1] G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1967).

[2] T. Denoeux, A k-nearest neighbor classification rule based on Dempster–Shafer theory, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics , vol. 25, 1995, p.804–813.

DOI: 10.1109/21.376493

[3] T. Denoeux, A neural network classifier based on Dempster–Shafer theory, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, vol. 30, 2000, p.131–150.

DOI: 10.1109/3468.833094

[4] T. Denoeux, L.M. Zouhal, Handling possibilistic labels in pattern classification using evidential reasoning, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 122, 2001, p.47–62.

DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0114(00)00086-5

[5] R. Haenni, J. Kohlas, N. Lehmann, Probabilistic argumentation systems, in: J. Kohlas, S. Moral (Eds. ), Algorithms for Uncertainty and Defeasible Reasoning, Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 5, Kluwer, Dordrecht, (2000).

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-1737-3_6

[6] J. Kohlas, R. Haenni, S. Moral, Propositional information systems, Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 9, 1999, p.651–681.

[7] R. Haenni, Probabilistic argumentation, Journal of Applied Logic, vol. 7, 2009, p.155–176.

[8] P. Smets, R. Kennes, The transferable belief model, Art. Intell, vol. 66, 1994, p.191–234.

DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(94)90026-4

[9] P. Smets, Practical uses of belief functions, in: K.B. Laskey, H. Prade (Eds. ), Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 15, Stockholm, Sweden, (1999).

[10] P. Smets, Belief functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 9, 1993, p.1–35.

DOI: 10.1016/0888-613x(93)90005-x

[11] B.R. Cobb, P.P. Shenoy, On the plausibility transformation method for translating belief function models to probability models, Int. J. Approx. Reason, vol. 41, 2006, p.314–330.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2005.06.008

[12] P. Smets, Decision making in the TBM: the necessity of the pignistic transformation, Int. J. Approx. Reason, vol. 38, 2005, p.133–147.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijar.2004.05.003

[13] J. Kohlas, P.A. Monney, A Mathematical Theory of Hints, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 425, Springer, Berlin, (1995).

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-01674-9