Bulletin of Pure & Applied Sciences- Mathematics and Statistics
  • Year: 2014
  • Volume: 33e
  • Issue: 2

Comments on the paper “An alternative combination rule for evidential reasoning” by Sebbak et al., published in fusion 2014 conference, Salamanca, Spain, july 2014

1University of New Mexico, Gallup, NM-87301, USA, E-mail: smarand@unm.edu

2The French Aerospace Lab, ONERA/DTIM/EVF, Chemin de la Hunière, 91761, Palaiseau Cedex, France, E-mail: jean.dezert@onera.fr

3Université de Rennes 1/IUT de Lannion, Umr 6074 Irisa, Rue Edouard Branly, BP 30219, 22302, Lannion cedex, France, E-mail: Arnaud.Martin@univ-rennes1.fr

Abstract

In this note we want to show that the PCR6 fusion rule works and redistributes the conflicting mass properly, contrarily to the authors’ assertion that “the focal element {v3} absorbs almost all of the conflicting mass (the majority)”. We also question the validity of the new CREC rule of combination presented by the authors.

Keywords

Belief function, PCR6 rule, PCR5 rule, CREC rule