DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNIQUE FOR STRUCTURING OF GROUP EXPERT ASSESSMENTS UNDER UNCERTAINTY AND INCONCISTANCY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15588/1607-3274-2023-4-3Keywords:
theory of evidence, distance metric, dissimilarity measure, clustering, expert evidence, uncertainty, inconsistencyAbstract
Context. The issues of structuring group expert assessments are considered in order to determine a generalized assessment under inconsistency between expert assessments. The object of the study is the process of synthesis of mathematical models of structuring (clustering, partitioning) of expert assessments that are formed within the framework of Shafer model under uncertainty, inconsistency (conflict).
Objective. The purpose of the article is to develop an approach based on the metrics of theory of evidence, which allows to identify a number of homogeneous subgroups from the initial heterogeneous set of expert judgments formed within the framework of the Shafer model, or to identify experts whose judgments differ significantly from the judgments of the rest of the group.
Method. The research methodology is based on the mathematical apparatus of theory of evidence and cluster analysis. The proposed approach uses the principles of hierarchical clustering to form a partition of a heterogeneous (inconsistent) set of expert evidence into a number of subgroups (clusters), within which expert assessments are close to each other. Metrics of the theory of evidence are considered as a criterion for determining the similarity and dissimilarity of clusters. Experts’ evidence are considered consistent in the formed cluster if the average or maximum (depending on certain initial conditions) level of conflict between them does not exceed a given threshold level.
Results. The proposed approach for structuring expert information makes it possible to assess the degree of consistency of expert assessments within an expert group based on an analysis of the distance between expert evidence bodies. In case of a lack of consistency within the expert group, it is proposed to select from a heterogeneous set of assessments subgroups of experts whose assessments are close to each other for further aggregation in order to obtain a generalized assessment.
Conclusions. Models and methods for analyzing and structuring group expert assessments formed within the notation of the theory of evidence under uncertainty, inconsistency, and conflict were further developed. An approach to clustering group expert assessments formed under uncertainty and inconsistency (conflict) within the framework of the Shafer model is proposed in order to identify subgroups within which expert assessments are considered consistent. In contrast to existing clustering methods, the proposed approach allows processing expert evidence of a various structure and taking into account possible ways of their interaction (combination, intersection).
References
Blokdyk G. Group Decision Making A Complete Guide. Toronto, 5STARCooks, 2021, 208 p.
Cichosz P. Data Mining Algorithms: Explained Using R. Chichester, Wiley, 2015, 720 p.
Hair J. F. et al. Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.). New Jersy, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, 899 p.
Scitovski R., Sabo K., Martínez-Álvarez F., Ungar S. Cluster Analysis and Applications. Switzerland. Springer Cham, 2021, 271 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-74552-3
Alhameli F., Elkamel A., Alkatheri M., BetancourtTorcat A., Almansoori A. New Class of Simple and Efficient Clustering Algorithms for Multiscale Mathematical Programming with Demand Data Applications, Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Fourth North American International Conference, Toronto, 23–25 October 2019: proceedings. Canada, IEOM Society International, 2019, pp. 497–505.
Hubert L. J., Arabie P., Meulman J. Dynamic Programming in Clustering. In: Floudas C., Pardalos P. (eds) Encyclopedia of Optimization. Boston, Springer, 2008, pp. 837–844. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-74759-0_145
Nguyentrang T., Vovan T. Fuzzy clustering of probability density functions, Journal of Applied Statistics, 2017, Vol. 44(4), pp. 583–601. DOI: 10.1080/02664763.2016.1177502
Kemeny J. G., Snell J. L. Mathematical models in the social sciences. Introduction to higher mathematics. New York, Toronto, London, Blaisdell Publishing Company, A Division of Ginn and Company, 1963, 145 p.
Sentz K., Ferson S. Combination of evidence in DempsterShafer theory. Technical report SAND 2002-0835. Albuquerque, Sandia National Laboratories, 2002, 94 p.
Dempster A. P. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multi-valued mapping, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1967, Vol. 38(2), pp. 325–339. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177698950
Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1976, 297 p.
Smarandache F., Dezert J. Advances and applications of DSmT for information fusion. Rehoboth, American Research Press, 2004, Vol. 1, 760 p.
Bhattacharyya A. On a measure of divergence between two statistical populations defined by their probability distribution, Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, 1943, Vol. 35, pp. 99–110.
Cuzzolin F. A geometric approach to the theory of evidence, Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 2007, Vol. 38(4), pp. 522–534. DOI: 10.1109/TSMCC.2008.919174
Jousselme A. L., Grenier D., Boss´e E. A new distance between two bodies of evidence, Information Fusion, 2001, Vol. 2, pp. 91–101. DOI: 10.1016/S1566-2535(01)00026-4
Tessem B. Approximations for efficient computation in the theory of evidence, Artificial Intelligence, 1993, Vol. 61, pp. 315–329. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(93)90072-J
Martin A., Jousselme A. L., Osswald C. Conflict measure for the discounting operation on belief functions, Information Fusion (FUSION 2008): the 11th International Conference, Cologne. Germany, 30 June–3 July 2008: proceedings. Cologne, IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–8.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ye. O. Davydenko, A. V. Shved, N. V. Honcharova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons Licensing Notifications in the Copyright Notices
The journal allows the authors to hold the copyright without restrictions and to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
The journal allows readers to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles.
The journal allows to reuse and remixing of its content, in accordance with a Creative Commons license СС BY -SA.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
-
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY-SA that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
-
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
-
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
