Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

What practical differences among probabilities, possibilities, and credibilities?
Author(s): Jean-Francois Grandin; Caroline Moulin
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

This paper presents some important differences that exist between theories, which allow the uncertainty management in data fusion. The main comparative results illustrated in this paper are the followings: Incompatibility between decisions got from probabilities and credibilities is highlighted. In the dynamic frame, as remarked in [19] or [17], belief and plausibility of Dempster-Shafer model do not frame the Bayesian probability. This framing can however be obtained by the Modified Dempster-Shafer approach. It also can be obtained in the Bayesian framework either by simulation techniques, or with a studentization. The uncommitted in the Dempster-Shafer way, e.g. the mass accorded to the ignorance, gives a mechanism similar to the reliability in the Bayesian model. Uncommitted mass in Dempster-Shafer theory or reliability in Bayes theory act like a filter that weakens extracted information, and improves robustness to outliners. So, it is logical to observe on examples like the one presented particularly by D.M. Buede, a faster convergence of a Bayesian method that doesn't take into account the reliability, in front of Dempster-Shafer method which uses uncommitted mass. But, on Bayesian masses, if reliability is taken into account, at the same level that the uncommited, e.g. F=1-m, we observe an equivalent rate for convergence. When Dempster-Shafer and Bayes operator are informed by uncertainty, faster or lower convergence can be exhibited on non Bayesian masses. This is due to positive or negative synergy between information delivered by sensors. This effect is a direct consequence of non additivity when considering non Bayesian masses. Unknowledge of the prior in bayesian techniques can be quickly compensated by information accumulated as time goes on by a set of sensors. All these results are presented on simple examples, and developed when necessary.

Paper Details

Date Published: 6 March 2002
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 4731, Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications VI, (6 March 2002); doi: 10.1117/12.458373
Show Author Affiliations
Jean-Francois Grandin, Thales Group (France)
Caroline Moulin, Thales Group (France)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 4731:
Sensor Fusion: Architectures, Algorithms, and Applications VI
Belur V. Dasarathy, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top