Table 1 Evidence combination results based on different combination methods
From: Conflicting evidence combination based on uncertainty measure and distance of evidence
Evidence | Method | m(A) | m(B) | m(C) | m(AC) | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
\(m_1,m_2\) | Dempster’s method (Dempster 1967) | 0 | 0.8969 | 0.1031 | 0 | B |
Murphy’s method (Murphy 2000) | 0.0964 | 0.8119 | 0.0917 | 0 | B | |
Deng et al.’s method (Deng et al. 2004) | 0.0964 | 0.8119 | 0.0917 | 0 | B | |
The proposed method | 0.0964 | 0.8119 | 0.0917 | 0 | B | |
\(m_1,m_2,m_3\) | Dempster’s method (Dempster 1967) | 0 | 0.6575 | 0.3425 | 0 | B |
Murphy’s method (Murphy 2000) | 0.4939 | 0.4180 | 0.0792 | 0.0090 | A | |
Deng et al.’s method (Deng et al. 2004) | 0.4974 | 0.4054 | 0.0888 | 0.0084 | A | |
The proposed method | 0.7614 | 0.1295 | 0.0961 | 0.0130 | A | |
\(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4\) | Dempster’s method (Dempster 1967) | 0 | 0.3321 | 0.6679 | 0 | C |
Murphy’s method (Murphy 2000) | 0.8362 | 0.1147 | 0.0410 | 0.0081 | A | |
Deng et al.’s method (Deng et al. 2004) | 0.9089 | 0.0444 | 0.0379 | 0.0089 | A | |
The proposed method | 0.9379 | 0.0173 | 0.0361 | 0.0087 | A | |
\(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,m_5\) | Dempster’s method (Dempster 1967) | 0 | 0.1422 | 0.8578 | 0 | C |
Murphy’s method (Murphy 2000) | 0.9620 | 0.0210 | 0.0138 | 0.0032 | A | |
Deng et al.’s method (Deng et al. 2004) | 0.9820 | 0.0039 | 0.0107 | 0.0034 | A | |
The proposed method | 0.9837 | 0.0021 | 0.0110 | 0.0032 | A |