arXiv:1703.01963v1 [] 6 Mar 2017

A new belief Markov chain model and its application in
inventory prediction
Zichang Hea , Wen Jianga,∗
a

School of Electronics and Information, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an,
Shaanxi, 710072, China

Abstract

Markov chain model is widely applied in many fields, especially the field of
prediction. The classical Discrete-time Markov chain(DTMC) is a widely
used method for prediction. However, the classical DTMC model has some
limitation when the system is complex with uncertain information or state
space is not discrete. To address it, a new belief Markov chain model is proposed by combining Dempster-Shafer evidence theory with Markov chain. In
our model, the uncertain data is allowed to be handle in the form of interval number and the basic probability assignment(BPA) is generated based
on the distance between interval numbers. The new belief Markov chain
model overcomes the shortcomings of classical Markov chain and has an efficient ability in dealing with uncertain information. Moreover, an example
of inventory prediction and the comparison between our model and classiCorresponding author at: School of Electronics and Information, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710072, China. Tel: (86-29)88431267. E-mail address:
jiangwen@nwpu.edu.cn, jiangwenpaper@hotmail.com
∗

Preprint submitted to Elsevier

March 7, 2017

cal DTMC model can show the effectiveness and rationality of our proposed
model.
Keywords: Markov chain model; Dempster-Shafer evidence theory; New
belief Markov chain; Interval number; Inventory prediction

1. Introduction

A Markov process can be used to model a random system that changes states
according to a transition rule that only depends on the current state. And
the Markov property is the most important property during Markov process,
namely the conditional probability distribution of the future states of the
process depends only upon the present state[23, 32, 34]. Markov chain is
a stochastic process with Markov property[11]. It is widely used in many
applications[1, 2, 19, 43], especially in the prediction[40, 48], such as rainfall
prediction[21, 39], economy prediction[29, 41] and so on.
Makov chain is a powerful tool to study sequential data. It provides a
bunch of models to analyze time series data and predict the variation tendencies of random processes, including discrete-time Markov chain(DTMC)[46],
continuous-time Markov chain[5, 54], hidden Markov chain[35, 47], etc. Among
these, DTMC model having the properties of both simplicity and effectiveness has a widely application in realistic programs[3, 36]. Classical DTMC
does a great job in prediction when the discrete states are easy to distinguish.
However, The uncertainty and vagueness exist in real world inevitably. The
2

application of DTMC model is limited when the states are not discrete or the
realistic states are uncertain. For example, the states can not be determined
according to the known data or the collected data may not be crisp. Fuzzy
mathematics is a great tool to handle with uncertainty[10, 26, 59]. To address
it, some modified models have been proposed like fuzzy Markov chain[4, 9]
and fuzzy states based on Markov chain[12, 33]. These models introduce
a certain subordinating degree function between the states distribution and
the states description. However, considering the complexity of the realistic
program, the certain function may be hard to build. Moreover, the evidential Markov chain[51, 52] and some generalized model models[14, 60] are also
proposed.
In this paper, a new belief Markov chain is proposed. The new model
uses the basic probability assignment(BPA) to describe the uncertainty of
states as Dempster-Shafer theory[49, 56] is an efficient tool to deal with the
uncertainty[6, 8, 50, 57]. The Dempster-shafer fusion can also be modelled
in the Markov fields.[7, 45]. Interval number is a simple and efficient tool
to handle the uncertain data[18, 25]. Considering the properties of interval
number, the BPA is generated based on interval number in our model. Due
to it, the uncertain data can be represented in the form of interval number. An application in inventory control shows that our proposed model
can represent and handle with uncertainty effectively. The prediction result
also agrees with the practical situation, which proves the correctness of our
model.
3

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The preliminaries of the basic
theory employed are briefly presented in Section 2. And the shortcoming
of DTMC model is illustrated in Section 3. Then our new belief Markov
chain model is shown in Section 4. Section 5 uses a numerical example of
inventory prediction to show the efficiency of our model. Finally, the paper
is concluded in Section 6.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, some preliminaries such as DTMC, Dempster-Shafer theory,
Pignistic probability transformation(PPT) and interval number are briefly
introduced.

2.1. Discrete-time Markov chain
Definition 2.1. let {Xn : n > 0} be a random sequence defined in the probability space (Ω, F, P ). P represents probability measure which is a function
from set F to filed of real number R. Every event in F is given a probability
value ranged from 0 to 1 by the function P . For arbitrary n ∈ N + and states
i1 , i2 , . . ., when P {Xn = in , Xn−1 = in−1 , . . . , X1 = i1 } > 0 if satisfying
P {Xn+1 = in+1 |Xn = in , . . . , X1 = i1 } = P {Xn+1 = in+1 |Xn = in }

(1)

then the random sequence {Xn : n > 0} is called the Markov chain. Eq.(1)
is called the Markov property.
Definition 2.2. Markov chain {Xn : n > 0} is homogeneous if meeting the
following condition: Given arbitrary m, n and states i, j, meeting P {Xn = i} >
0 and P {Xm = i} > 0,
P {Xn+1 = j|Xn = i} = P {Xm+1 = j|Xm = i}
4

(2)

Definition 2.3. For homogeneous Markov chain, the following conditional
probability
Pij (m, m + n) = P {Xm+n = j|Xm = i}
(3)
is called the transition probability from the condition that m moment Markov
chain is in state i to the condition that m+n moment Markov chain is in state
j. And the matrix composed of transferring probability is called transferring
probability matrix.

The following is some important properties of Markov chain. let E denote
(k)

state space, Pij

denote the probability of state i transferring to state j

through k steps. The k transferring probability of homogeneous Markov
chain has the following properties:
(k)

Pij ≥ 0, ∀i, j ∈ E, k ≥ 0
P

(k)

∀i ∈ E, k ≥ 0

Pij = 1,

(4)
(5)

j∈E
(m+k)

Pij

=

P

(m)

(k)

Pir Prj ,

∀i, j ∈ E, m, k ≥ 0

(6)

r∈E

2.2. Dempster-Shafer evidence theory
Tough evidence theory has some open issues, such as conflict management
[16, 58], dependent evidence combination [53] and determination of basic
probability assignment[28], it has a wide applications like fault diagnosis[27],
supplier chain management[13, 17], decision making[15, 22, 31, 38] and risk
evaluation which matters a lot in reality[20, 24, 30], due to its efficiency to
model and fuse uncertain information. The following is some basic concepts
of D-S evidence theory.
5

Definition 2.4. Let U denote a finite set composed of the whole possible
value of the random variable X. The elements of set U are mutually exclusive
and U is called the frame of discernment. Let 2U denote the power set of U
whose each element corresponds to a subset of the value of X.

Definition 2.5. Let U denote the frame of discernment. Given an arbitrary proposition(subset) A of U, a mass function called the basic probability
assignment(BPA) is a mapping m : 2U → [0, 1], satisfying the following conditions:
X
m (A) = 1
(7)
A∈2U

and
m (∅) = 0

(8)

where m (A) reflects the evidence’s supporting degree to the proposition A. A
is called the focal element if satisfying m (A) > 0

2.3. Pignistic probability transformation
Since the evidence theory assigns the probability to all the subsets of the
frame of discernment, the BPA usually relates to probability assignment
of a multi-element subset rather than a singleton subset. It reflects the
uncertainty of the real world. However, the decisions are uneasy to make by
using BPA directly. The BPA is usually converted to probability and then
the decision will be make based on the probability. Pignistic probability
transformation(PPT) is a classical method to achieve it by averaging the
BPA of a multi-element set into singleten sets.
Definition 2.6. Let U denote the frame of discernment and m be a BPA on
U. A pignistic probability transformation function Bet U → [0, 1] is defined
6

as:
X

Bet P (x) =

x⊆A,A∈U

m (A)
|A|

(9)

where |A| is the cardinality of proposition A.

2.4. Interval number
Definition 2.7. An interval number ã is defined as ã = [a− , a+ ] = {x|a− ≤ x ≤ a+ }
where a− and a+ are the lower limiting value and upper limiting value apparently while x ∈ [0, 1]. Especially, interval number a− degenerates into a
real number when a− = a+ .

Definition 2.8. Let A = [a1 , a2 ] and B = [b1 , b2 ] be two interval numbers.
The square of the distance between two interval numbers D 2 (A, B) is calculated by [55]:
D 2 (A, B) =
=

i h
io2
(b1 +b2 )
+
x
(a
−
a
)
−
+
x
(b
−
b
)
dx
2
1
2
1
2
2
i2
2
2)
2 −b1 )]
− (b1 +b
+ [(a2 −a1 )+(b
2
12
(10)

R 21 nh (a1 +a2 )
1

h− 2

(a1 +a2 )
2

3. The shortcoming of DTMC model

In this section, a realistic example of inventory anticipation will show the
detailed application of DTMC model and its main shortcoming.
Example 3.1. Table 1 is one company’s statistics of the inventory demand
for Product E15 in 20 consecutive periods. Relying on these data, the number
21 periods’ inventory can be anticipated by applying the traditional DTMC
model.
7

Table 1: Inventory demand for Product E15 in 20 consecutive periods
Time(period)
Inventory(package)

1
143

2
152

3
161

4
139

5
137

6
174

7
142

8
141

9
162

10
180

Time(period)
Inventory(package)

11
164

12
171

13
206

14
193

15
207

16
218

17
229

18
225

19
204

20
200

Generally, the most significant step of prediction is to build a transition probability matrix. Then according to the original states probability assignment,
the next period’s probability of transferring to each state can be calculated.
A larger transferring probability means it is more likely to be in the state.
Consequently, the state of next period can be predicted.
First of all, the states space of DTMC model needs to be determined. Based
on the data in Table 1, the inventory demand of one period ranges from 137
to 229. If every integer in the interval is deemed as one state, the number of
states will be overmuch and the state transferring condition will be hard to
count. Considering the number of states should be rational and convenient
for building transition probability matrix, the states need to be classified and
the classified states are show in Table 2.
Table 2: The results of classified states.
Inventory(package)

[100,150)

[150,200)

[200,250)

States

Low(L)

Medium(M)

High(H)

Serial number

1

2

3

Let Nij denote the times of transferring from the state i to state j. Then the
8

following data are obtained.
N11 = 2, N12 = 3, N13 = 0;
N21 = 2, N22 = 4, N23 = 2;
N31 = 0, N32 = 2, N33 = 4.
Let E denote the whole state space. Based on the following equation
Pij = Nij /

X

j∈E

Nij

(11)

the transfer probability matrix can be obtained as:


0.400 0.600 0.000




P =  0.250 0.500 0.250 


0.000 0.333 0.667
The inventory of 20th period is 200 packages, belonging to the state medium.
Based on the obtained transfer probability matrix, the state probability assignment of the next period is: (L, M, H) = (0.250, 0.500, 0.250) Thus, the
21st period’s state is most likely to be medium with the probability of 0.500.
However, a serious shortcoming exists in this model. If the inventory of the
final period changes from 200 to 201 and the rest data keep the same, then
the new transition probability matrix is obtained as:


0.400 0.600 0.000




P =  0.250 0.500 0.250 


0.000 0.167 0.833
9

Because 201 belongs to the state high, the state probability assignment of
21st period turns into: (L, M, H) = (0.000, 0.167, 0.8333). And now the state
high becomes the most likely one with a probability of 0.833, which is much
lager than 0.500. The tiny change in the final period leads to a drastic change
of the prediction, which is obviously irrational. The prediction result should
be close whatever the final inventory is 200 or 201. The reason causing this
situation is that the states are classified by a too crisp critical region. Each
value belongs to a certain state with a probability of 1 completely. Thus, the
prediction result may change drastically in the critical region.
In realistic programs, the value should not correspond to certain state completely. For example, 200 may belong to the state medium with a probability
of 0.4 while to the state high with a probability of 0.6. Or the value can not
be classified into certain, like it may belong to both medium and high, but
the probability of belong to medium or high is uncertain. Besides, the data
of the previous periods or the current period may be uncertain. In that case,
the states may be hard to classified and the transferring probability matrix
is difficult to build. To address these problems, a new belief Markov model
is proposed.

4. The new belief Markov chain model

The integrated process of building the new belief Markov model is as following:
10

Step 1. Determine the state space based on the previous data. Make sure the
number of states is rational and all the states form the frame of discernment
U.
Step 2. Calculate the BPA of the whole periods on the power set of the
discernment 2U based on the distance between interval numbers.
Step 3. Calculate the single-step transferring belief assignment Pij , i, j ∈ 2U
based on the obtained BPA, . And then the transition belief matrix [Pij ] is
built. Pij represents the belief assignment of transferring from proposition i
to proposition j:
n−1
P

Pij =

(m(i)t ·m(j)t+1 )

t=1
P n−1
P
k∈2U t=1

(m(i)t ·m(k)t+1 )

, i, j ∈ 2U

(12)

where m(i)t represents the assigned belief of proposition i in the t moment,
n represents the length of the Markov chain.
Note 4.1. In classical DTMC model, the transition takes place between basic
states. While in new belief Markov chain model, the transition takes place
between propositions. In other words, the probability is replaced with BPA.
Hence, the original transition probability matrix is replaced with the transition
belief matrix.

Step 4. Let m = [m (i)] , i ∈ 2U be the BPA of the final period. Then
the assignment of the next period can be obtained by:
m′ = m · [Pij ]
11

(13)

Step 5. Convert the obtained BPA of the next period m′ into the states
probability assignment [Pij ] , i ∈ 2U by using PPT. And the final prediction result is obtained.
In our model, one of the most significant step is to generate BPA. The detailed
process of generating BPA is shown in the following. First of all, the interval

Figure 1: The flow chart of generating BPA

BPA need to be obtained. The fuzziness and uncertainty existed in realistic
situation can be effectively represented in the form of interval number. And
the crisp number can also be deemed as an interval number like 0.5 can be
seen as [0.5,0.5].
By using Eq.(10), the distance between these interval numbers can be calculated.
Then the similarity of the interval numbers can be obtained based on the
distance.
Definition 4.1. Let A= [a1 , a2 ] and B= [b1 , b2 ] be two interval numbers. The

12

similarity of the two interval numbers S (A, B) is defined as:
S (A, B) =

1+

1
(A, B)

(14)

D2

where D (A, B) is the distance between interval number A and B.

When the interval number A equals to B, S (A, B) = 1. According to the
definition, it is easy to know that the larger the difference between A and B
is, the similarity is smaller.
Finally, normalize the obtained similarity and the BPA of interval number is
obtained. An example will show the process in the following.
Example 4.1. Let state A range in the interval (0,5] and state B range in
the interval (5,10]. Given an interval number C=[3,6] and α=3, the result
of generated BPA is shown as Table 3.
Table 3: The result of example 4.1.

States

Distance

Similarity

A
B

28
3
43
3

3
31
3
46

BPA
0.5974
0.4026

5. Numerical example

Inventory control is a common realistic problem[37, 42, 44]. In this section,
the inventory prediction problem in Section 3 will still be taken as an example
13

to show the effectiveness of our model. We assume that some uncertain
information exist in the realistic statistics, some data of inventory demand
are in the form of interval number. Table 4 is one company’s statistics of the
inventory demand for Product E15 in 20 consecutive periods. Following the
steps described in Section 4, the new belief Markov model will be applied to
do the prediction.
Table 4: Inventory demand for Product E16 in 20 consecutive periods
Time(period)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Inventory(package)

143

152

[157,162]

139

137

[165,180]

142

141

162

180

Time(period)

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Inventory(package)

164

171

[204,209]

193

207

[215,220]

229

225

204

200

As shown in Table 4, the inventory of the whole 20 periods ranges in the interval number [137, 229]. All the values can be classified into three basic states:
low(L), medium(M) and high(H). They constitute the frame of discernment
U = {L, M, H}. Then the power set of the frame is consisted of {L}, {M},
{H}, {L, M }, {M, H}, {L, H}, {L, M, H} and the empty set ∅. To assign
the value of inventory into its according proposition, the correspondences
between propositions and the value of inventory are determined as Table 5.
Considering the realistic situation, the assessment of the inventory can not
be both low and high, nor do the propositions {L, M, H} or empty set ∅. So
these propositions do not have a according inventory value. After assigning,
the distribution of the 20 periods can be showed like Figure 5.
14

Table 5: Correspondences between propositions and inventory

Series

Propositions

Inventory

1

{L}

[100,150]

2

{L,M}

[135,165]

3

{M}

[150,200]

4

{M,H}

[185,215]

5

{H}

[201,250]

-

{L,H}

-

-

{L,M,H}

-

-

∅

-

Figure 2: Previous inventory demand

Generally speaking, given an inventory value, its according proposition is
certain. However, in our model, it can be assigned to every proposition with

15

different probabilities. The probabilities of the assignment are unknown for
now. The BPA cannot be obtained without a certain probability. Thus the
following step is to calculate the probabilities of assignment.
Let us take the inventory of 6th period [165,180] as an example. Based on
Eq.(10), the distance among the inventory and all valid propositions can be
obtained. Then by using Eq.(14), the similarity among the inventory and all
valid propositions can also be obtained. Lastly, the BPA of 6th period can
be obtained by normalizing the similarity. The results are shown in Table 6.
And the BPA of 6th period is
m ({L} , {L, M } , {M} , {M, H} , {H}) = [0.0324, 0.1422, 0.7033, 0.0964, 0.0257]

Table 6: The BPA of 6th period

Propositions

Distance

Similarity

BPA

{L}

48.0139

4.3359×e-4

0.0324

{L,M}

22.9129

0.0019

0.1422

{M}

10.2632

0.0094

0.7033

{M,H}

27.8388

0.0013

0.0964

{H}

53.9011

3.4408×e-4

0.0257

Repeat the above process for 20 times, the BPA of each period can be obtained in Table 7.
16

As shown in Table 7, in this program every BPA is nonzero. Thus the Eq.(12)
can be rewritten as following:
n−1
P

Pij =

n−1
P

(m(i)t ·m(j)t+1 )

t=1
P n−1
P
k∈2U t=1

(m(i)t ·m(k)t+1 )

=

t=1

(m(i)t ·m(j)t+1 )
n−1
P

, i, j ∈ 2U

(15)

m(i)t

t=1

By using Eq.(15), the belief assignment of transferring from one proposition
to another proposition can be calculated. For example, the belief assignment
of transferring from proposition {L} to proposition {L, M } is calculated as:

P12 =

n−1
P
t=1

m({L})t · m({L, M})t+1
n−1
P
t=1



= 0.4208

(16)

m({L})t

All the obtained transferring belief assignments constitute a 5×5 transition
belief matrix [Pij ] as following:

 0.1369 0.4208

 0.1329 0.4712


 0.0923 0.3188



 0.0299 0.0938

0.0228 0.0611



0.2914 0.1081 0.0427 

0.2559 0.1046 0.0353 


0.2250 0.2769 0.0870 



0.1271 0.5199 0.2292 

0.0895 0.4165 0.4100

The next step is to predict the inventory of the 21st period based on the
BPA of the 20th period and the matrix [Pij ]. As Table 7 shows, the BPA
of the 20th is m (20) = (0.0228, 0.0611, 0.0895, 0.4165, 0.4100). By using the
Eq.(13) the BPA of the 21st is calculated as:
m (21) = m (20) · [Pij ] = (0.0379, 0.1214, 0.1368, 0.4792, 0.2247)
17

(17)

Finally, use Pignistic probability transformation(Eq.(9)) to transfer the obtained BPA to the probabilities of basic states.
Bet P (L) =0.0379 +

0.1214
= 0.0986
2

0.4792
0.1214
+ 0.1368 +
= 0.4371
2
2
0.4792
Bet P (H) =
+ 0.2247 = 0.4643
2

Bet P (M) =

The result is (L, M, H) = (0.0986, 0.4371, 0.4643). Thus, the inventory of
21st period is most likely to be in stage high. The practical inventory demand
for 21st is 223, which is in the state high. Thus, the prediction result confirms
with the reality and is rational.
When the inventory of the 20th inventory changes, the result of prediction
also change fluently, which verifies the effectiveness and rationality of our
model. As Figure 3 shows, when the inventory of the 20th period is less than
195, the prediction result is medium. On the contrary, the result is high when
the inventory of the 20th is more than 196. And the line changes fluently.
It reveals that the shortcoming of the classical Markov model mentioned in
Section 3 can be effectively solved in our model. In addition, the comparison
between the prediction and the real situation is shown in Table 8. The
practical inventory of 20th is 200, thus the prediction result is in accord with
the practical situation which prove the effectiveness of our model.
In the following, the comparison between our model and classical DTMC
model is made. Compared with the classical model, the most significant
18

The predicted probabilities of the 21th period

0.8
Low
Medium
High

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

The inventory of the 20th period

Figure 3: The prediction of the 21th period

difference of our model is that the state is distributed into each possible state
with a probability. Figure 4 illustrates the methods of state distribution in
different models. The three different models are applied to predict the 21st
inventory demand when the data of 20th fluctuates. As Figure 5 shows,
along the 20th inventory demand changes, the sudden change will exist in
prediction of classical Markov chain model.
As mentioned above, the classical DTMC model can not handle the uncertainty, especially a little change of data may lead to a drastic prediction
result, which is obviously irrational. The increase in the state number may
decrease the trouble caused by uncertainty of states in some degree. However, a larger data set will be needed to assure it and the problem of drastic
change in prediction is still unavoidable. By contrast, our new belief Markov
19

Figure 4: Comparison of state distribution

chain model can handle these shortcomings effectively. Moreover, the uncertain data like interval number can also be well handled, which proves our
model’s ability of handling uncertain information.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, a new belief Markov chain model is proposed. The shortcomings of classical DTMC model are successfully overcame in this model. The
main advantages of the new model are as following:
1. Stability. The sudden change of prediction result is avoided, namely the
prediction result will change fluently along the slight change of data.
2. The ability of handling uncertain information. Either the uncertainty of
20

state or data can be effectively handled in our model.
3. Flexibility. The different state distribution schemes and basic probability
assignment distribution functions can lead to different results. The setting
can be adjusted according to the realistic situation which reveals the flexibility of our model.
A numerical example of inventory prediction is illustrated in the paper to
show the application of our model. And the prediction result and comparison
prove the effectiveness and rationality of our model.

Acknowledgement

The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant No. 61671384), Natural Science Basic Research Plan in
Shaanxi Province of China (Program No. 2016JM6018), the Fund of SAST
(Program No. SAST2016083), the Seed Foundation of Innovation and Creation for Graduate Students in Northwestern Polytechnical University (Program No. Z2016122).

References
[1] Alagoz, O., Hsu HSchaefer, A.J., Roberts, M.S., 2010. Markov decision processes: a tool for sequential decision making under uncertainty.
21

Medical Decision Making 30, 474–483.
[2] Annett, B., Sabine, T., Helge, B., 2010. Twelve years of succession on
sandy substrates in a post-mining landscape: a markov chain analysis. Ecological Applications A Publication of the Ecological Society of
America 20, 1136–47.
[3] Arenas, A., Borge-Holthoefer, J., Meloni, S., Moreno, Y., et al., 2010.
Discrete-time markov chain approach to contact-based disease spreading
in complex networks. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 89, 38009.
[4] Avrachenkov, K.E., Sanchez, E., 2002.

Fuzzy markov chains and

decision-making. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making 1, 143–159.
[5] Aziz, A., Sanwal, K., Singhal, V., Brayton, R., 2000. Model-checking
continuous-time markov chains. ACM Transactions on Computational
Logic (TOCL) 1, 162–170.
[6] Benavoli, A., Chisci, L., Farina, A., Ristic, B., 2008. Modelling uncertain
implication rules in evidence theory, in: Information Fusion, 2008 11th
International Conference on, IEEE. pp. 1–7.
[7] Boudaren, M.E.Y., An, L., Pieczynski, W., 2016. Dempster-shafer fusion of evidential pairwise markov fields. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems 74, 13–29.
[8] Boujelben, M.A., De Smet, Y., Frikha, A., Chabchoub, H., 2009. Building a binary outranking relation in uncertain, imprecise and multi22

experts contexts: The application of evidence theory. International
journal of approximate reasoning 50, 1259–1278.
[9] Buckley, J.J., 2005. Fuzzy markov chains. Fuzzy Probabilities: New
Approach and Applications , 71–83.
[10] Chou, C.C., 2016. A generalized similarity measure for fuzzy numbers.
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30, 1147–1155.
[11] Darling, D.A., Siegert, A.J.F., 1953. The first passage problem for a
continuous markov process. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 24, 624–
639.
[12] De Korvin, A., Kleyle, R., 1998. Expected transition costs based on a
markov model having fuzzy states with an application to policy selection.
Stochastic analysis and applications 16, 51–64.
[13] Deng, X., Hu, Y., Deng, Y., Mahadevan, S., 2014a. Supplier selection
using AHP methodology extended by d numbers. Expert Systems with
Applications 41, 156–167.
[14] Deng, X., Liu, Q., Deng, Y., 2015. Newborns prediction based on a
belief markov chain model. Applied Intelligence 43, 1–14.
[15] Deng, X., Lu, X., Chan, F.T.S., Sadiq, R., Mahadevan, S., Deng, Y.,
2014b. D-cfpr: D numbers extended consistent fuzzy preference relations. Knowledge-Based Systems 73, 61C68.

23

[16] Deng, Y., 2015. Generalized evidence theory. Applied Intelligence 43,
530–543.
[17] Deng, Y., Chan, F.T.S., 2011. A new fuzzy dempster mcdm method and
its application in supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications
38, 9854–9861.
[18] Dou, R., Zong, C., Li, M., 2016. An interactive genetic algorithm with
the interval arithmetic based on hesitation and its application to achieve
customer collaborative product configuration design. Applied Soft Computing 38, 384–394.
[19] Farahat, A., 2010. Markov stochastic technique to determine galactic
cosmic ray sources distribution. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy
31, 81–88.
[20] Feng, N., Yu, X., Dou, R., Pan, B., 2015. Managing risk for business
processes: A fuzzy based multi-agent system. Journal of Intelligent &
Fuzzy Systems 29, 2717–2726.
[21] Fraedrich, K., Muller, K., 1983. On single station forecasting: Sunshine
and rainfall markov chains. Beitr. Phys. Atmos 56, 208–134.
[22] Fu, C., Yang, J.B., Yang, S.L., 2015. A group evidential reasoning
approach based on expert reliability. European Journal of Operational
Research 246, 886–893.

24

[23] Fu, J.C., Koutras, M.V., 1994. Distribution theory of runs: A markov
chain approach. Journal of the American Statistical Association 18,
1050–1058.
[24] Guo, J., 2016. A risk assessment approach for failure mode and effects
analysis based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets and evidence theory. Journal
of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30, 869–881.
[25] Jiang, C., Han, X., Liu, G., Liu, G., 2008. A nonlinear interval number
programming method for uncertain optimization problems. European
Journal of Operational Research 188, 1–13.
[26] Jiang, W., Luo, Y., Qin, X., Zhan, J., 2015. An improved method
to rank generalized fuzzy numbers with different left heights and right
heights. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 28, 2343–2355.
[27] Jiang, W., Wei, B., Xie, C., Zhou, D., 2016a. An evidential sensor fusion
method in fault diagnosis. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 8, 1–7.
[28] Jiang, W., Zhan, J., Zhou, D., Li, X., 2016b. A method to determine
generalized basic probability assignment in the open world. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2016, 1–11.
[29] Jin, Y., Xie, Z., Chen, J., Chen, E., 2015. Phev power distribution
fuzzy logic control strategy based on prediction. Journal of Zhejiang
University of Technology 43, 97–102.

25

[30] Kabir, G., Tesfamariam, S., Francisque, A., Sadiq, R., 2015. Evaluating risk of water mains failure using a bayesian belief network model.
European Journal of Operational Research 240, 220–234.
[31] Kang, B., Deng, Y., Sadiq, R., Mahadevan, S., 2012. Evidential cognitive maps. Knowledge-Based Systems 35, 77–86.
[32] Kemeny, J.G., Snell, J.L., 1960. Finite markov chain. American Mathematical Monthly 67.
[33] Kleyle, R., De Korvin, A., 1997. Transition probabilities for markov
chains having fuzzy states. Stochastic analysis and applications 15, 527–
546.
[34] Komorowski, T., Szarek, T., 2010. On ergodicity of some markov processes. Annals of Probability 38, pgs. 1401–1443.
[35] Krogh, A., Larsson, B., Von Heijne, G., Sonnhammer, E.L., 2001. Predicting transmembrane protein topology with a hidden markov model:
application to complete genomes. Journal of molecular biology 305,
567–580.
[36] Lange, K., 2010. Discrete-time markov chains, in: Applied Probability.
Springer, pp. 151–185.
[37] Levi, R., Pl, M., Roundy, R., Shmoys, D.B., 2005. Approximation Algorithms for Stochastic Inventory Control Models. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
26

[38] Li, Y., Chen, J., Ye, F., Liu, D., 2016. The improvement of ds evidence
theory and its application in ir/mmw target recognition. Journal of
Sensors 2016, 1–15.
[39] Liu, C., Tian, Y.M., Wang, X.H., 2011. Study of rainfall prediction
model based on gm (1, 1) - markov chain, in: Water Resource and
Environmental Protection (ISWREP), 2011 International Symposium
on, pp. 744–747.
[40] Lu, Y., Zhang, M., Yu, T., Qu, M., Lu, Y., Zhang, M., Yu, T., Qu,
M., 2014. Application of markov prediction method in the decision of
insurance company. lemcs-14 .
[41] Mar, J., Anto?anzas, F., Pradas, R., Arrospide, A., 2010. Probabilistic
markov models in economic evaluation of health technologies: a practical
guide. Gaceta Sanitaria 24, 209–214.
[42] Memari, A., Rahim, A.R.B.A., Ahmad, R.B., 2014. Production Planning and Inventory Control in Automotive Supply Chain Networks.
[43] Navaei, 2010. Markov chain for multiple hypotheses testing and identification of distributions for one object. Pakistan Journal of Statistics
26, 557–562.
[44] Ozbay, K., Ozguven, E.E., 2007. Stochastic Humanitarian Inventory
Control Model for Disaster Planning.

27

[45] Pieczynski, W., Benboudjema, D., 2006. Multisensor triplet markov
fields and theory of evidence. Image & Vision Computing 24, 61–69.
[46] Privault, N., 2013. Discrete-time markov chains, in: Understanding
Markov Chains. Springer, pp. 77–94.
[47] Rabiner, L.R., Juang, B.H., 1986. An introduction to hidden markov
models. ASSP Magazine, IEEE 3, 4–16.
[48] Samet, H., Mojallal, A., 2014. Enhancement of electric arc furnace reactive power compensation using grey-markov prediction method. Generation, Transmission & Distribution, IET 8, 1626–1636.
[49] Shafer, G., et al., 1976. A mathematical theory of evidence. volume 1.
Princeton university press Princeton.
[50] Song, Y., Wang, X., Lei, L., Yue, S., 2016. Uncertainty measure for
interval-valued belief structures. Measurement 80, 241–250.
[51] Soubaras, H., 2009. An Evidential Measure of Risk in Evidential Markov
Chains. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[52] Soubaras, H., 2010. On evidential markov chains. Studies in Fuzziness
& Soft Computing 249, 247–264.
[53] Su, X., Mahadevan, S., Han, W., Deng, Y., 2016. Combining dependent
bodies of evidence. Applied Intelligence 44, 634–644.

28

[54] Suchard, M.A., Weiss, R.E., Sinsheimer, J.S., 2001. Bayesian selection of
continuous-time markov chain evolutionary models. Molecular biology
and evolution 18, 1001–1013.
[55] Tran, L., Duckstein, L., 2002. Comparison of fuzzy numbers using a
fuzzy distance measure. Fuzzy sets and systems 130, 331–341.
[56] Yager, R.R., Liu, L., 2008. Classic works of the Dempster-Shafer theory
of belief functions. volume 219. Springer.
[57] Yang, Y., Han, D., 2016. A new distance-based total uncertainty measure in the theory of belief functions. Knowledge-Based Systems 94,
114–123.
[58] Yu, C., Yang, J., Yang, D., Ma, X., Min, H., 2015. An improved conflicting evidence combination approach based on a new supporting probability distance. Expert Systems with Applications 42, 5139–5149.
[59] Zadeh, L.A., 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and control 8, 338–353.
[60] Zhou, X., Li, S., Ye, Z., 2013. A novel system anomaly prediction system
based on belief markov model and ensemble classification. Mathematical
Problems in Engineering 2013, 831–842.

29

Table 7: The BPA of 20 periods
PP
PP
PP Propositions
PP
{L}
{L,M} {M}
PP
P
Period
PP
P

{M,H}

{H}

1

0.1758

0.7137

0.0709

0.0268

0.0127

2

0.0713

0.8047

0.0855

0.0270

0.0115

3

0.0694

0.6379

0.2186

0.0540

0.0202

4

0.2988

0.5814

0.0747

0.0302

0.0149

5

0.3728

0.5072

0.0738

0.0307

0.0155

6

0.0324

0.1422

0.7033

0.0964

0.0257

7

0.2023

0.6841

0.0724

0.0278

0.0134

8

0.2319

0.6518

0.0736

0.0288

0.0139

9

0.0750

0.5224

0.2998

0.0756

0.0272

10

0.0375

0.1220

0.5379

0.2501

0.0524

11

0.0720

0.4456

0.3636

0.0883

0.0304

12

0.0296

0.0981

0.6195

0.2111

0.0417

13

0.0108

0.0224

0.0648

0.7630

0.1390

14

0.0183

0.0452

0.1715

0.6959

0.0692

15

0.0131

0.0270

0.0753

0.7191

0.1654

16

0.0158

0.0295

0.0691

0.3467

0.5389

17

0.0144

0.0249

0.0514

0.1716

0.7377

18

0.0141

0.0249

0.0535

0.2025

0.7050

19

0.0113

0.0241

0.0712

0.7845

0.1088

20

0.0108

0.0240

0.0773

0.8151

0.0728

30

Table 8: Comparison between prediction and practical situation
Inventory

193

194

195

196

197

Prediction result(Probability)

M(0.4577)

M(0.4511)

M(0.4479)

H(0.4454)

H(0.4516)

Practical situation

H

Inventory

198

199

200

201

202

Prediction result(Probability)

H(0.4568)

H(0.4609)

H(0.4643)

H(0.4670)

H(0.4692)

Practical situation

H

31

Figure 5: Comparison of model prediction

32

