| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
Page 283
Figure 7.3
A representation of
|
(7.15) |
Suppose now one is somewhat
|
(7.16) |
Note that the quantity of bpa
|
(7.17) |
which is the measure of uncertainty or ignorance; in our case 80% confidence leads to 20% uncertainty and this is reflected in the labelling process.
In what
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
Page 284
of the mass of evidence which is committed to the ψ and to its
|
(7.18) |
For instance, using the example discussed earlier, the Bel for hypothesis {B, F} can be represented by:
|
(7.19) |
and it can be found that Bel (ψ) is a measure of the total amount of belief in ψ including all ψ’s subsets. When ψ is a singleton, Bel (ψ)= m (ψ). For instance, Bel({B}}=m({B}) . The plausibility for hypothesis {B, F} can be represented by:
|
(7.20) |
Bel (ψ) can thus be interpreted as the minimum amount of evidence that a pixel is properly labelled with ψ, while Pl (ψ) can be interpreted as the maximal extent to which the current evidence could allow one to belief ψ (Shafer, 1979). Note that Pl (ψ) provides another choice for us to make a decision when there is no evidence, which exactly supports hypothesis ψ.
If a pixel belongs to ψ then the probability P (ψ) may lie somewhere between the interval:
|
(7.21) |
with the range
Pl
(ψ)–
Bel
(ψ), which in
|
(7.22) |
That is, Pl (ψ) and Bel (ψ) provide the upper bound and lower bound of the probability of the subset. Recall from Equation (7.15) that the belief, plausibility, and interval for each class are:
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
Page 285
|
(7.23) |
In the above case, the interval is equal to m (θ), and one may finally choose class P as the label of the pixel of interest because in Equation (7.23) each interval is the same, and class ‘pasture’, i.e. subset {p}, has the highest belief and plausibility in comparison with the other two classes.
Now consider a more complicated instance. If one holds the following evidence for each hypothesis:
|
|
then the belief, plausibility, and interval become:
|
(7.24) |
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |
Page 286
In such circumstances, if one considers only single-class labelling, one may still choose
{P},
because its belief and plausibility are the highest without considering the set
{B, F}
. However, it may be
To investigate further the relationship between belief and plausibility, one can speculate that plausibility is always equal to or greater than belief, that is:
|
(7.25) |
which leads to:
|
(7.26) |
Equation (7.26) is derived on the basis of the observation that both
Bel
(ψ) and
Bel
(~ψ) have no subset in common, and
Bel
(ψ) and
Bel
(~ψ) are each made by the sum of bpa of its own
|
(7.27) |
The above expression specifies what the interval or uncertainty is, and it is then apparent that 1– Bel (ψ)– Bel (~ψ) can be greater than 0, which confirms Equation (7.26).
In most cases, more than one set of evidence is available, and the decision to label a pixel is made based on the accumulation of all of the evidence. D-S theory acknowledges such a requirement and provides a formal proposal for multi-evidence management.
The aggregation of multiple belief functions is called Dempster’s orthogonal sum, or Dempster’s rule of combination (Shafer, 1979). Let
Bel
a
and
Bel
b
denote two belief functions, and let
m
a
and
m
b
be their corresponding bpas. Dempster’s orthogonal sum generates a new bpa, denoted by
m
a
m
b
,
which represents the result of combing
m
a
and
m
b
. The result of the accumulation of both belief functions, denoted by
Bel
a
Bel
b
,
is derived from
m
a
m
b
. If
m
(ψ) denotes the new aggregated bpa, the combination rule can be specified by:
| [Cover] [Contents] [Index] |