Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a unified evidence reasoning framework that enhances multi-source evidence fusion under Dempster-Shafer theory by addressing the limitations of existing conflict measures and fusion methods. It employs a novel chaos-conflict measurement to simultaneously evaluate inter-evidence conflict and intra-evidence uncertainty, alongside a historical experience-driven weighting scheme that utilizes spectral clustering and regret theory to derive context-specific reliability profiles. Experimental results on 16 benchmark datasets reveal that the framework significantly outperforms existing methods, achieving an average F1 score of 85.78 and a mean AUC of 93.30, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness in adaptive evidence fusion for complex decision-making scenarios.
A novel chaos-conflict measurement and historical experience weighting scheme together boost evidence fusion performance, achieving state-of-the-art results in multi-source decision-making.
Multi-source evidence fusion under Dempster-Shafer theory faces two persistent challenges: existing conflict measures assess inter-evidence inconsistency and intra-evidence uncertainty independently, yielding incomplete evaluations, and current fusion methods evaluate evidence sources exclusively through instantaneous comparisns without exploiting their long-term reliability across diverse decision contexts. This paper proposes a unified evidence reasoning framework that addresses both limitations. Specifically, a chaos-conflict measurement is introduced to jointly quantify cross-evidence conflict and intra-evidence non-specificity, with five formally proven properties ensuring consistent assessment. A historical experience driven weighting scheme partitions the decision space via spectral clustering and applies regret theory to compute context-specific reliability profiles from past fusion outcomes. These mechanisms feed into a hybrid combination rule that adaptively balances uncertainty preservation against weighted consensus, controlled by the global conflict level, followed by a belief-interval decision strategy that enables robust classification without discarding epistemic uncertainty. Experiments on 16 real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves an average F1 score of 85.78 and a mean AUC of 93.30, outperforming eight DST-based baselines and three gradient boosting methods. Ablation analysis confirms the contribution of each component we proposed. The framework offers an effective approach for adaptive evidence fusion in multi-source decision making.
