A Generalized Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory
Fuyuan Xiaoa,∗
of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, China,
No.2 Tiansheng Road, BeiBei District, Chongqing, 400715,P.R.China

arXiv:1801.05707v2 [] 18 Jan 2018

a School

Abstract
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory has been widely used in various fields of applications. Besides, it has been proven that the quantum theory has powerful
capabilities of solving the decision making problems. However, due to the inconsistency of the expression, the classical Dempster–Shafer evidence theory
modelled by real numbers can not be integrated directly with the quantum
theory modelled by complex numbers. The main contribution in this study is
that, unlike the existing evidence theory, a mass function in the generalized
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is modelled by a complex number, called as a
complex mass function. 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. This generalized Dempster–Shafer
evidence theory provides a promising way to model and handle more uncertain
information. Numerical examples are illustrated to show the efficiency of the
generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory.
Keywords: Dempster-Shafer evidence theory, Generalized Dempster–Shafer
evidence theory, Belief function, Quantum theory, Complex number

1. Introduction
As an uncertainty reasoning tool, Dempster–Shafer evidence theory was
firstly presented by Dempster [6] and had been developed by Shafer [7] in 1976
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Computer and Information Science, Southwest University, No.2 Tiansheng Road, BeiBei District, Chongqing, 400715, China. E-mail: xiaofuyuan@swu.edu.cn

Preprint submitted to ***

January 19, 2018

year. Due to the flexibility and effectiveness in modeling uncertainties without prior information, Dempster–Shafer evidence theory has been widely used
in various fields of applications, like decision making [25–31], pattern recognition [32–34], risk analysis [35–39], supplier selection [40, 41], fault diagnosis [42–
45], and so on [46–50].
Currently, the quantum theory has became an interesting and hot topic in
solving the decision making problems. It has been known that the quantum
theory is represented by complex probability [67]. So the question remains,
can we leverage the complex probability to express the Dempster–Shafer evidence theory in the same way? As a pioneer, Deng [68] first proposed a meta
mass function expressed by complex numbers in Dempster–Shafer evidence theory. Inspired by his research work, a generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence
theory is proposed in this study. Specifically, a mass function in the generalized
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is modelled by a complex number, called as
a complex mass function. In particular, 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. Consequently,
this generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory provides a promising way to
model and handle more uncertain information.
The remaining content of this paper is arranged below. Section 2 introduces
the preliminaries of this paper briefly. In Section 3, a generalized Dempster–
Shafer evidence theory is proposed. In Section 4, a decision making method
based on the generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is developed. Section 5 gives numerical examples to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposal.
Finally, Section 6 gives the conclusion.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Complex number [67, 68]
A complex number z is a number of the form,
z = x + yi,
2

(1)

where x and y are real numbers and i is the imaginary unit, satisfying i2 = −1.
Give two complex numbers z1 = x1 + y1 i and z2 = x2 + y2 i, the addition is
defined as follows:
z1 + z2 = (x1 + y1 i) + (x2 + y2 i) = (x1 + x2 ) + (y1 + y2 )i.

(2)

The subtraction is defined as follows:
z1 − z2 = (x1 + y1 i) − (x2 + y2 i) = (x1 − x2 ) + (y1 − y2 )i.

(3)

The multiplication is defined as follows:
(x1 + y1 i)(x2 + y2 i) = (x1 x2 − y1 y2 ) + (x1 y2 + x2 y1 )i.

(4)

The division is defined as follows:
x1 + y1 i
x2 y1 − x1 y2
x1 x2 + y1 y2
+
i.
=
x2 + y2 i
x22 + y22
x22 + y22

(5)

An important parameter is the absolute value (or modulus or magnitude) of
a complex number z = x + yi is
r = |z| =

p
x2 + y 2 ,

(6)

where if z is a real number (i.e., y = 0), then r = |x|.
The square of the absolute value is
|z|2 = z z̄ = x2 + y 2 ,

(7)

where z̄ is the complex conjugate of z, i.e., z̄ = x − yi.
2.2. Dempster–Shafer evidence theory [6, 7]
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is extensively applied to handle uncertain information that belongs to the category of artificial intelligence. Because
3

Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is flexible and effective in modeling the uncertainty regardless of prior information, it requires weaker conditions compared
with the Bayesian theory of probability. When the probability is confirmed,
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory degenerates to the probability theory and is
considered as a generalization of Bayesian inference. In addition, Dempster–
Shafer evidence theory has the advantage that it can directly express the “uncertainty” via allocating the probability into the set’s subsets, which consists
of multi-objects, instead of a single object. Furthermore, it is capable of combining the bodies of evidence to derive new evidence. The basic concepts and
definitions are described as below.
Definition 1. (Frame of discernment)
Let Θ be a nonempty set of events that are mutually-exclusive and collectivelyexhaustive, defined by:
Θ = {F1 , F2 , . . . , Fi , . . . , FN },

(8)

in which the set Θ denotes a frame of discernment.
The power set of Θ is represented as 2Θ , where:
2Θ = {∅, {F1 }, {F2 }, . . . , {FN }, {F1 , F2 }, . . . , {F1 , F2 , . . . , Fi }, . . . , Θ},

(9)

and ∅ is an empty set.
When A is an element of the power set of Θ, i.e., A ∈ 2Θ , A is called a
hypothesis or proposition.
Definition 2. (Mass function)
In the frame of discernment Θ, a mass function m is represented as a mapping from 2Θ to [0, 1] that is defined as:
m:

2Θ → [0, 1],

4

(10)

which meets the conditions below:
m(∅) = 0,
X

(11)

m(A) = 1.

A∈2Θ

The mass function m in the Dempster–Shafer evidence theory can also be
called a basic belief assignment (BBA). When m(A) is greater than zero, A as the
element of 2Θ is named as a focal element of the mass function, where the mass
function m(A) indicates how strongly the evidence supports the proposition or
hypothesis A.
Definition 3. (Belief function)
Let A be a proposition where A ⊆ Θ; the belief function Bel of the proposition
A is defined by:
Bel :

2Θ → [0, 1],
X
Bel(A) =
m(B).

(12)

B⊆A

The plausibility function P l of the proposition A is defined by:
Pl :

2Θ → [0, 1],
P l(A) = 1 − Bel(Ā) =

X

m(B),

(13)

B∩A6=∅

where Ā is the complement of A, such that Ā = Θ − A.
Apparently, the plausibility function P l(A) is equal to or greater than the
belief function Bel(A), where the belief function Bel is the lower limit function
of the proposition A, and the plausibility function P l is the upper limit function
of the proposition A.
Definition 4. (Dempster’s rule of combination)
Let two basic belief assignments (BBAs) be m1 and m2 on the frame of
discernment Θ where the BBAs m1 and m2 are independent; Dempster’s rule

5

of combination, defined by m = m1 ⊕ m2 , which is called the orthogonal sum, is
represented as below:

m(A) =





1
1−K

P

m1 (B)m2 (C),

A 6= ∅,
(14)

B∩C=A

A = ∅,


 0,
with:
K=

X

m1 (B)m2 (C),

(15)

B∩C=∅

where B and C are also the elements of 2Θ and K is a constant that presents
the conflict coefficient between the BBAs m1 and m2 .
Notice that Dempster’s combination rule is only practicable for the BBAs
m1 and m2 under the condition that K < 1.

3. Generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory
Let Ω be a nonempty set of events that are mutually-exclusive and collectivelyexhaustive, defined by:
Ω = {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ei , . . . , EN },

(16)

in which the set Ω denotes a frame of discernment.
The power set of Ω is represented as 2Ω , where:
2Ω = {∅, {E1 }, {E2 }, . . . , {EN }, {E1 , E2 }, . . . , {E1 , E2 , . . . , Ei }, . . . , Ω}, (17)
and ∅ is an empty set.
Definition 5. (Complex mass function)
In the frame of discernment Ω, a complex mass function m is modelled as a
complex number:
x + yi,

6

(18)

with
x2 + y 2 ∈ [0, 1],

(19)

and is represented as a mapping from 2Ω to C, denoted as:
m:

2Ω → C,

(20)

which meets the conditions below:
m(∅) = 0,
X

(21)

m(A) = 1.

A∈2Ω

The complex mass function m modelled as a complex number in the generalized Dempster–Shafer evidence theory can also be called a complex basic belief
assignment (CBBA). When |m(A)| is greater than zero, A as the element of 2Ω
is named as a focal element of the generalized mass function, where the mass
function m(A) indicates how strongly the evidence supports the proposition or
hypothesis A. The definition of |m(A)| is detailed in Section 4.
Definition 6. (Complex belief function)
Let A be a proposition where A ⊆ Ω; a complex belief function Belc of the
proposition A is defined by:
Belc :

2Ω → C,
Belc (A) =

X

(22)

m(B).

B⊆A

The complex plausibility function P lc of the proposition A is defined by:
P lc :

2Ω → C,
P lc (A) = 1 − Belc (Ā) =

X

B∩A6=∅

where Ā is the complement of A, such that Ā = Ω − A.

7

m(B),

(23)

Apparently, the plausibility function P lc (A) is equal to or greater than the
belief function Belc (A), where the belief function Belc is the lower limit function
of the proposition A, and the plausibility function P lc is the upper limit function
of the proposition A.
Definition 7. (Generalized Dempster’s rule of combination)
Let two complex basic belief assignments (CBBAs) be m1 and m2 on the
frame of discernment Ω where the CBBAs m1 and m2 are independent; the
generalized Dempster’s rule of combination, defined by m = m1 ⊕ m2 , which is
called the orthogonal sum, is represented as below:

m(A) =







1
1−K

P

m1 (B)m2 (C),

A 6= ∅,
(24)

B∩C=A

A = ∅,

0,

with:
K=

X

m1 (B)m2 (C),

(25)

B∩C=∅

where B and C are also the elements of 2Ω and K is a constant that presents
the conflict coefficient between the CBBAs m1 and m2 .
Remark 1. Generalized Dempster’s combination rule is only practicable for the
CBBAs m1 and m2 under the condition that the conflict coefficient K 6= 1.

4. Decision making method
From Section 3, it can be notice that the fusing results generated from the
generalized Dempster’s rule of combination is expressed by complex numbers
which are not comparable directly. So, the question is that how can we make
a decision based on the fusing results obtained through the generalized Dempster’s rule of combination? To answer this question, a belief value of a complex
basic belief assignment is developed on the basis of complex theory discussed in
Section 2.1.

8

Definition 8. (The magnitude of a CBBA)
Let A be a proposition in the frame of discernment Ω, a complex basic belief
assignment m(A) is expressed by a complex number as x + yi and the magnitude
of m(A) is defined by:
p
x2 + y 2 .

|m(A)| =

(26)

Definition 9. (The square of magnitude of a CBBA)
Let A be a proposition in the frame of discernment Ω, a complex basic belief
assignment m(A) is expressed by a complex number as x + yi and the square of
magnitude of m(A) is defined by:
¯ = x2 + y 2 ,
|m(A)|2 = m(A)m(A)

(27)

¯ = x − yi is the complex conjugate of m(A).
where m(A)
Definition 10. (The belief value of a CBBA)
Let A be a proposition in the frame of discernment Ω, a belief value of a
complex basic belief assignment m(A) is defined by:
|m(A)|2
,
2
A⊆Ω |m(A)|

Γm(A) = P
where

P

A⊆Ω

(28)

Γm(A) = 1.

Then, upon the defined belief value of the CBBA, a decision can be made
according to the object with the biggest belief value.

5. Numerical examples
In this section, numerical examples are illustrated to show the effectiveness
of the proposed method.
Example 1. Supposing that there are two CBBAs m1 and m2 in the frame of
discernment Ω = {A, B}, and the two CBBAs are given as follows:

9

m1 : m1 (A) = 0.1 −
m2 : m2 (A) = 0.1 +

√
√
2 2
2
i,
m
(B)
=
0.7
+
1
8
8 i,
√
√
2 3
3
10 i, m2 (B) = 0.6 + 10 i,

m1 (A, B) = 0.2 −
m2 (A, B) = 0.3 −

√

2
8 i;
√
3 3
10 i.

Then, the fusing results are calculated by utilising Eq. (24) as follows:
m(A) = 0.0979 + 0.0186i,
m(B) = 0.9031 - 0.1820i,
m(A, B) = -0.0010 + 0.1634i.
It is verified that m(A) + m(B) + m(A, B) = 1 in this example.
Next, the squares of magnitudes in terms of m(A), m(B) and m(A, B) are
produced as:
|m(A)|2 = 0.0996,
|m(B)|2 = 0.9213,
|m(A, B)|2 = 0.1634.
Finally, the belief values in terms of m(A), m(B) and m(A, B) are obtained
as:
Γm(A) = 0.0112,
Γm(B) = 0.9586,
Γm(A, B) = 0.0302.

6. Conclusions
Dempster–Shafer evidence theory is a very useful uncertainty reasoning tool
in modeling and handling uncertainties regardless of prior information. On the
other hand, the quantum theory has proven its powerful capabilities of solving
the decision making problems. Whereas, the classical Dempster–Shafer evidence
theory expressed by real numbers can not be integrated directly with the quantum theory. To address this issue, in this study, a generalized Dempster–Shafer
evidence theory which is expressed by complex numbers is proposed.

10

Competing interests
The author declare that she have no competing interests.

Acknowledgments
This research is supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. SWU115008), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61672435, 61702427, 61702426) and the 1000-Plan of
Chongqing by Southwest University (No. SWU116007).

References
[1] B. Walczak, D. Massart, Rough sets theory, Chemometrics and Intelligent
Laboratory Systems 47 (1) (1999) 1–16.
[2] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (3) (1965) 338–353.
[3] H.-C. Liu, L. Liu, Q.-L. Lin, Fuzzy failure mode and effects analysis using
fuzzy evidential reasoning and belief rule-based methodology, IEEE Transactions on Reliability 62 (1) (2013) 23–36.
[4] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, E. K. Zavadskas, Fuzzy multiple criteria decisionmaking techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014,
Expert Systems with Applications 42 (8) (2015) 4126–4148.
[5] R. Zhang, B. Ashuri, Y. Deng, A novel method for forecasting time series
based on fuzzy logic and visibility graph, Advances in Data Analysis and
Classification 11 (2017) 759–783.
[6] A. P. Dempster, Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued
mapping, Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38 (2) (1967) 325–339.
[7] G. Shafer, et al., A mathematical theory of evidence, Vol. 1, Princeton
University Press Princeton, 1976.

11

[8] W. Jiang, J. Zhan, A modified combination rule in generalized evidence
theory, Applied Intelligence 46 (3) (2017) 630–640.
[9] H. Xu, Y. Deng, Dependent evidence combination based on Shearman
coefficient and Pearson coefficient, IEEE Access (2018) Doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2783320.
[10] X. Deng, W. Jiang, An evidential axiomatic design approach for decision making using the evaluation of belief structure satisfaction to uncertain target values, International Journal of Intelligent Systems (2017) DOI:
10.1002/int.21929.
[11] L. A. Zadeh, A note on Z-numbers, Information Sciences 181 (14) (2011)
2923–2932.
[12] B. Kang, G. Chhipi-Shrestha, Y. Deng, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq, Stable strategies analysis based on the utility of Z-number in the evolutionary games, Applied Mathematics and Computation (2017) Doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2017.12.006.
[13] Q. Zhang, M. Li, Y. Deng, Measure the structure similarity of nodes in
complex networks based on relative entropy, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics
and its Applications (2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2017.09.042.
[14] F. Xiao, An intelligent complex event processing with D numbers under
fuzzy environment, Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2016.
[15] H. Mo, Y. Deng, A new aggregating operator for linguistic information
based on D numbers, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowledge-Based Systems 24 (06) (2016) 831–846.
[16] X. Deng, Y. Deng, D-AHP method with different credibility of information,
Soft Computing (2018) Doi: 10.1007/s00500–017–2993–9.
[17] B. Liu, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, New failure mode and effects analysis based on D
numbers downscaling method, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 13 (2) (2018) In press.
12

[18] T. Bian, H. Zheng, L. Yin, Y. Deng, Failure mode and effects analysis based
on D numbers and TOPSIS, Quality and Reliability Engineering International
(2018) Doi: 10.1002/qre.2268.
[19] X. Zhou, X. Deng, Y. Deng, S. Mahadevan, Dependence assessment in
human reliability analysis based on D numbers and AHP, Nuclear Engineering
and Design 313 (2017) 243–252.
[20] J.-B. Yang, Y.-M. Wang, D.-L. Xu, K.-S. Chin, L. Chatton, Belief rulebased methodology for mapping consumer preferences and setting product
targets, Expert Systems with Applications 39 (5) (2012) 4749–4759.
[21] C. Fu, J.-B. Yang, S.-L. Yang, A group evidential reasoning approach based
on expert reliability, European Journal of Operational Research 246 (3) (2015)
886–893.
[22] J.-B. Yang, D.-L. Xu, Interactive minimax optimisation for integrated performance analysis and resource planning, Computers & Operations Research
46 (2014) 78–90.
[23] J.-B. Yang, D.-L. Xu, Evidential reasoning rule for evidence combination,
Artificial Intelligence 205 (2013) 1–29.
[24] J. Ma, Qualitative approach to Bayesian networks with multiple causes,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and
Humans 42 (2) (2012) 382–391.
[25] W. Jiang, B. Wei, X. Liu, X. Li, H. Zheng, Intuitionistic fuzzy evidential power aggregation operator and its application in multiple criteria decision-making, International Journal of Systems Science (2018) Doi:
10.1002/int.21939.
[26] L. Fei, H. Wang, L. Chen, Y. Deng, A new vector valued similarity measure
for intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on OWA operators, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy
Systems (2017) accepted.

13

[27] W. Jiang, B. Wei, X. Liu, X. Li, H. Zheng, Intuitionistic fuzzy power
aggregation operator based on entropy and its application in decision making,
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 33 (1) (2018) 49–67.
[28] Y. Deng, Deng entropy, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 91 (2016) 549–553.
[29] W. Jiang, S. Wang, X. Liu, H. Zheng, B. Wei, Evidence conflict measure
based on OWA operator in open world, PloS one 12 (5) (2017) e0177828.
[30] X. Deng, D. Han, J. Dezert, Y. Deng, Y. Shyr, Evidence combination from
an evolutionary game theory perspective, IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics
46 (9) (2016) 2070–2082.
[31] W. Jiang, S. Wang, An uncertainty measure for interval-valued evidences,
International Journal of Computers Communications & Control 12 (5) (2017)
631–644.
[32] T. Denoeux, A k-nearest neighbor classification rule based on Dempster–
Shafer theory, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 25 (5)
(1995) 804–813.
[33] J. Ma, W. Liu, P. Miller, H. Zhou, An evidential fusion approach for gender
profiling, Information Sciences 333 (2016) 10–20.
[34] Z.-g. Liu, Q. Pan, J. Dezert, A. Martin, Adaptive imputation of missing
values for incomplete pattern classification, Pattern Recognition 52 (2016)
85–95.
[35] P. Dutta, Uncertainty modeling in risk assessment based on Dempster–
Shafer theory of evidence with generalized fuzzy focal elements, Fuzzy Information and Engineering 7 (1) (2015) 15–30.
[36] X. Zheng, Y. Deng, Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis
based on evidence credibility decay model and IOWA operator, Annals of
Nuclear Energy (2017) accepted.

14

[37] X. Su, S. Mahadevan, P. Xu, Y. Deng, Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis using evidence theory and AHP, Risk Analysis 35 (7) (2015)
1296–1316.
[38] X. Zhang, S. Mahadevan, X. Deng, Reliability analysis with linguistic data:
An evidential network approach, Reliability Engineering & System Safety 162
(2017) 111–121.
[39] L. Zhang, L. Ding, X. Wu, M. J. Skibniewski, An improved Dempster–
Shafer approach to construction safety risk perception, Knowledge-Based Systems.
[40] X. Deng, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, S. Mahadevan, Supplier selection using AHP
methodology extended by D numbers, Expert Systems with Applications
41 (1) (2014) 156–167.
[41] T. Liu, Y. Deng, F. Chan, Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems (2017) DOI:
10.1007/s40815–017–0400–4.
[42] W. Jiang, C. Xie, M. Zhuang, Y. Tang, Failure mode and effects analysis
based on a novel fuzzy evidential method, Applied Soft Computing 57 (2017)
672–683.
[43] X. Fan, M. J. Zuo, Fault diagnosis of machines based on D–S evidence theory. Part 1: D–S evidence theory and its improvement, Pattern Recognition
Letters 27 (5) (2006) 366–376.
[44] W. Jiang, C. Xie, M. Zhuang, Y. Tang, Failure mode and effects analysis
based on a novel fuzzy evidential method, Applied Soft Computing 57 (2017)
672–683.
[45] Y. Du, X. Lu, X. Su, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, New failure mode and effects analysis: An evidential downscaling method, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International 32 (2) (2016) 737–746.

15

[46] H. Zheng, Y. Deng, Evaluation method based on fuzzy relations between
Dempster-Shafer belief structure, International Journal of Intelligent Systems
(2017) DOI: 10.1002/int.21956.
[47] B. Kang, G. Chhipi-Shrestha, Y. Deng, J. Mori, K. Hewage, R. Sadiq,
Development of a predictive model for Clostridium difficile infection incidence in hospitals using Gaussian mixture model and Dempster-Shafer
theroy, Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (2017) DOI:
10.1007/s00477–017–1459–z.
[48] W. Jiang, B. Wei, J. Zhan, C. Xie, D. Zhou, A visibility graph power
averaging aggregation operator: A methodology based on network analysis,
Computers & Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 260–268.
[49] Y. Dong, J. Wang, F. Chen, Y. Hu, Y. Deng, Location of facility based
on simulated annealing and “ZKW” algorithms, Mathematical Problems in
Engineering 2017 (2017) Article ID 4628501.
[50] H. Zheng, Y. Deng, Y. Hu, Fuzzy evidential influence diagram and its
evaluation algorithm, Knowledge-Based Systems 131 (2017) 28–45.
[51] L. A. Zadeh, A simple view of the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence and
its implication for the rule of combination, AI Magazine 7 (2) (1986) 85.
[52] Y. Deng, Generalized evidence theory, Applied Intelligence 43 (3) (2015)
530–543.
[53] E. Lefevre, O. Colot, P. Vannoorenberghe, Belief function combination and
conflict management, Information Fusion 3 (2) (2002) 149–162.
[54] W. Jiang, B. Wei, Y. Tang, D. Zhou, Ordered visibility graph average
aggregation operator: An application in produced water management, Chaos:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 27 (2) (2017) Article ID
023117.

16

[55] D. Han, Y. Deng, C.-Z. Han, Z. Hou, Weighted evidence combination based
on distance of evidence and uncertainty measure, Journal of Infrared & Millimeter Waves 30 (5) (2011) 396–400.
[56] X. Deng, F. Xiao, Y. Deng, An improved distance-based total uncertainty
measure in belief function theory, Applied Intelligence 46 (4) (2017) 898–915.
[57] J. Ma, W. Liu, S. Benferhat, A belief revision framework for revising epistemic states with partial epistemic states, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 59 (2015) 20–40.
[58] P. Smets, The combination of evidence in the transferable belief model,
IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 12 (5)
(1990) 447–458.
[59] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Representation and combination of uncertainty with
belief functions and possibility measures, Computational Intelligence 4 (3)
(1988) 244–264.
[60] R. R. Yager, On the dempster-shafer framework and new combination rules,
Information Sciences 41 (2) (1987) 93–137.
[61] C. K. Murphy, Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts, Decision
Support Systems 29 (1) (2000) 1–9.
[62] Y. Deng, W. Shi, Z. Zhu, Q. Liu, Combining belief functions based on
distance of evidence, Decision Support Systems 38 (3) (2004) 489–493.
[63] Z. Zhang, T. Liu, D. Chen, W. Zhang, Novel algorithm for identifying
and fusing conflicting data in wireless sensor networks, Sensors 14 (6) (2014)
9562–9581.
[64] E. M. Pothos, J. R. Busemeyer, A quantum probability explanation for
violations of ’rational’ decision theory, Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London Biological Sciences 276 (1665) (2009) 2171–2178.

17

[65] J. R. Busemeyer, P. D. Bruza, Quantum models of cognition and decision,
Cambridge University Press, 2012.
[66] Bruza, D. Peter, Wang, Zheng, Busemeyer, R. Jerome, Quantum cognition:
a new theoretical approach to psychology, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (7)
(2015) 383–93.
[67] M. J. Ablowitz, A. S. Fokas, Complex variables: introduction and applications, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[68] Y. Deng, Meta mass function (2017) viXra.

18

