BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Philippe Smets

Philippe Smets contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Artificial Intelligence

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
14works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

14 published item(s)

preprint2013arXiv

A Belief-Function Based Decision Support System

In this paper, we present a decision support system based on belief functions and the pignistic transformation. The system is an integration of an evidential system for belief function propagation and a valuation-based system for Bayesian decision analysis. The two subsystems are connected through the pignistic transformation. The system takes as inputs the user's "gut feelings" about a situation and suggests what, if any, are to be tested and in what order, and it does so with a user friendly interface.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

About Updating

Survey of several forms of updating, with a practical illustrative example. We study several updating (conditioning) schemes that emerge naturally from a common scenarion to provide some insights into their meaning. Updating is a subtle operation and there is no single method, no single 'good' rule. The choice of the appropriate rule must always be given due consideration. Planchet (1989) presents a mathematical survey of many rules. We focus on the practical meaning of these rules. After summarizing the several rules for conditioning, we present an illustrative example in which the various forms of conditioning can be explained.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Assessing the value of a candidate. Comparing belief function and possibility theories

The problem of assessing the value of a candidate is viewed here as a multiple combination problem. On the one hand a candidate can be evaluated according to different criteria, and on the other hand several experts are supposed to assess the value of candidates according to each criterion. Criteria are not equally important, experts are not equally competent or reliable. Moreover levels of satisfaction of criteria, or levels of confidence are only assumed to take their values in qualitative scales which are just linearly ordered. The problem is discussed within two frameworks, the transferable belief model and the qualitative possibility theory. They respectively offer a quantitative and a qualitative setting for handling the problem, providing thus a way to compare the nature of the underlying assumptions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Belief Functions and Default Reasoning

We present a new approach to dealing with default information based on the theory of belief functions. Our semantic structures, inspired by Adams' epsilon-semantics, are epsilon-belief assignments, where values committed to focal elements are either close to 0 or close to 1. We define two systems based on these structures, and relate them to other non-monotonic systems presented in the literature. We show that our second system correctly addresses the well-known problems of specificity, irrelevance, blocking of inheritance, ambiguity, and redundancy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Evidential Reasoning with Conditional Belief Functions

In the existing evidential networks with belief functions, the relations among the variables are always represented by joint belief functions on the product space of the involved variables. In this paper, we use conditional belief functions to represent such relations in the network and show some relations of these two kinds of representations. We also present a propagation algorithm for such networks. By analyzing the properties of some special evidential networks with conditional belief functions, we show that the reasoning process can be simplified in such kinds of networks.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Generating Explanations for Evidential Reasoning

In this paper, we present two methods to provide explanations for reasoning with belief functions in the valuation-based systems. One approach, inspired by Strat's method, is based on sensitivity analysis, but its computation is simpler thus easier to implement than Strat's. The other one is to examine the impact of evidence on the conclusion based on the measure of the information content in the evidence. We show the property of additivity for the pieces of evidence that are conditional independent within the context of the valuation-based systems. We will give an example to show how these approaches are applied in an evidential network.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Jeffrey's rule of conditioning generalized to belief functions

Jeffrey's rule of conditioning has been proposed in order to revise a probability measure by another probability function. We generalize it within the framework of the models based on belief functions. We show that several forms of Jeffrey's conditionings can be defined that correspond to the geometrical rule of conditioning and to Dempster's rule of conditioning, respectively.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Practical Uses of Belief Functions

We present examples where the use of belief functions provided sound and elegant solutions to real life problems. These are essentially characterized by ?missing' information. The examples deal with 1) discriminant analysis using a learning set where classes are only partially known; 2) an information retrieval systems handling inter-documents relationships; 3) the combination of data from sensors competent on partially overlapping frames; 4) the determination of the number of sources in a multi-sensor environment by studying the inter-sensors contradiction. The purpose of the paper is to report on such applications where the use of belief functions provides a convenient tool to handle ?messy' data problems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

The Dynamic of Belief in the Transferable Belief Model and Specialization-Generalization Matrices

The fundamental updating process in the transferable belief model is related to the concept of specialization and can be described by a specialization matrix. The degree of belief in the truth of a proposition is a degree of justified support. The Principle of Minimal Commitment implies that one should never give more support to the truth of a proposition than justified. We show that Dempster's rule of conditioning corresponds essentially to the least committed specialization, and that Dempster's rule of combination results essentially from commutativity requirements. The concept of generalization, dual to thc concept of specialization, is described.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access