IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/chsofr/v140y2020ics0960077920305099.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Critique of modified Deng entropies under the evidence theory

Author

Listed:
  • Moral-García, Serafín
  • Abellán, Joaquín

Abstract

The Evidence theory or Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST) has been frequently used in practical applications to deal with uncertainty or lack of information. It is based on the concept of basic probability assignment (BPA). In DST, it is important to quantify the uncertainty (or information) that a BPA represents. An uncertainty measure, known as Deng entropy, was introduced as an interesting alternative to other measures proposed before. In previous work, it was shown that the Deng entropy does not verify most of the required properties for this type of measure and presents some undesirable behaviors. Two modifications of the Deng entropy have been recently proposed, which improve the original one. In this research, we demonstrate that these modifications do also not satisfy the majority of the necessary mathematical properties, and they present most of the behavioral drawbacks of the original one. Therefore, as the original Deng entropy, the modified ones should be cautiously employed in practical applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Moral-García, Serafín & Abellán, Joaquín, 2020. "Critique of modified Deng entropies under the evidence theory," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:140:y:2020:i:c:s0960077920305099
    DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960077920305099
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110112?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deyun Zhou & Yongchuan Tang & Wen Jiang, 2017. "A modified belief entropy in Dempster-Shafer framework," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lei Chen & Ling Diao & Jun Sang, 2019. "A novel weighted evidence combination rule based on improved entropy function with a diagnosis application," International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, , vol. 15(1), pages 15501477188, January.
    2. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    3. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 87-106, March.
    4. Li, Siran & Xiao, Fuyuan, 2023. "Normal distribution based on maximum Deng entropy," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Li, Ya & Lan, Xin & Deng, Xinyang & Sadiq, Rehan & Deng, Yong, 2014. "Comprehensive consideration of strategy updating promotes cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 403(C), pages 284-292.
    6. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    7. Wu, Chong & Barnes, David, 2010. "Formulating partner selection criteria for agile supply chains: A Dempster-Shafer belief acceptability optimisation approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 284-293, June.
    8. Kangas, Annika S. & Kangas, Jyrki, 2004. "Probability, possibility and evidence: approaches to consider risk and uncertainty in forestry decision analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 169-188, March.
    9. Yan, Lisen & Peng, Jun & Gao, Dianzhu & Wu, Yue & Liu, Yongjie & Li, Heng & Liu, Weirong & Huang, Zhiwu, 2022. "A hybrid method with cascaded structure for early-stage remaining useful life prediction of lithium-ion battery," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    10. Yang, J.B. & Wang, Y.M. & Xu, D.L. & Chin, K.S., 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for MADA under both probabilistic and fuzzy uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 309-343, May.
    11. Dingyi Gan & Bin Yang & Yongchuan Tang, 2020. "An Extended Base Belief Function in Dempster–Shafer Evidence Theory and Its Application in Conflict Data Fusion," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    13. Nopadon Kronprasert & Antti Talvitie, 2015. "Use of reasoning maps in evaluation of transport alternatives: inclusion of uncertainty and “I Don’t Know”: demonstration of a method," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 389-406, March.
    14. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    15. S. Nodoust & A. Mirzazadeh & G.-W. Weber, 2020. "An evidential reasoning approach for production modeling with deteriorating and ameliorating items," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, March.
    16. Ren, Jingzheng & Lützen, Marie, 2017. "Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1003-1019.
    17. Zhang, Yifan & Shu, Gang & Li, Ya, 2017. "Strategy-updating depending on local environment enhances cooperation in prisoner’s dilemma game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 301(C), pages 224-232.
    18. Zhang, Mei-Jing & Wang, Ying-Ming & Li, Ling-Hui & Chen, Sheng-Qun, 2017. "A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 1005-1015.
    19. Beynon, Malcolm J., 2005. "Understanding local ignorance and non-specificity within the DS/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 403-417, June.
    20. Elgazzar, Sara H. & Tipi, Nicoleta S. & Hubbard, Nick J. & Leach, David Z., 2012. "Linking supply chain processes’ performance to a company’s financial strategic objectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 276-289.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:chsofr:v:140:y:2020:i:c:s0960077920305099. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thayer, Thomas R. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.