Interval Certitude Rule Base Inference Method using the Evidential Reasoning

Development of rule-based systems is an important research area for artificial intelligence and decision making, as rule base is one of the most general purpose forms for expressing human knowledge. In this paper, a new rule-based representation and its inference method based on evidential reasoning are presented based on operational research and fuzzy set theory. In this rule base, the uncertainties of human knowledge and human judgment are designed with interval certitude degrees which are embedded in the antecedent terms and consequent terms. The knowledge representation and inference framework offer an improvement of the recently developed rule base inference method, and the evidential reasoning approach is still applied to the rule fusion. It is noteworthy that the uncertainties will be defined and modeled using interval certitude degrees. In the end, an illustrative example is provided to illustrate the proposed knowledge representation and inference method as well as demonstrate its effectiveness by comparing with some existing approaches

Use of evidential reasoning for eliciting bayesian subjective probabilities in human reliability analysis: A maritime case

Modelling the interdependencies among the factors influencing human error (e.g. the common performance conditions (CPCs) in Cognitive Reliability Error Analysis Method (CREAM)) stimulates the use of Bayesian Networks (BNs) in Human Reliability Analysis (HRA). However, subjective probability elicitation for a BN is often a daunting and complex task. To create conditional probability values for each given variable in a BN requires a high degree of knowledge and engineering effort, often from a group of domain experts. This paper presents a novel hybrid approach for incorporating the evidential reasoning (ER) approach with BNs to facilitate HRA under incomplete data. The kernel of this approach is to develop the best and the worst possible conditional subjective probabilities of the nodes representing the factors influencing HRA when using BNs in human error probability (HEP). The proposed hybrid approach is demonstrated by using CREAM to estimate HEP in the maritime area. The findings from the hybrid ER-BN model can effectively facilitate HEP analysis in specific and decision-making under uncertainty in general

Application of Natural Language Processing and Evidential Analysis to Web-Based Intelligence Information Acquisition

The quality of decisions made in business and government relates directly to the quality of the information used to formulate the decision. This information may be retrieved from an organization's knowledge base (Intranet) or from the World Wide Web. Intelligence services Intranet held information can be efficiently manipulated by technologies based upon either semantics such as ontologies, or statistics such as meaning-based computing. These technologies require complex processing of large amount of textual information. However, they cannot currently be effectively applied to Web-based search due to various obstacles, such as lack of semantic tagging. A new approach proposed in this paper supports Web-based search for intelligence information utilizing evidence-based natural language processing (NLP). This approach combines traditional NLP methods for filtering of Web-search results, Grounded Theory to test the completeness of the evidence, and Evidential Analysis to test the quality of gathered information. The enriched information derived from the Web-search will be transferred to the intelligence services knowledge base for handling by an effective Intranet search system thus increasing substantially the information for intelligence analysis. The paper will show that the quality of retrieved information is significantly enhanced by the discovery of previously unknown facts derived from known facts

Rehabilitating Statistical Evidence

Recently, the practice of deciding legal cases on purely statistical evidence has been widely criticised. Many feel uncomfortable with finding someone guilty on the basis of bare probabilities, even though the chance of error might be stupendously small. This is an important issue: with the rise of DNA profiling, courts are increasingly faced with purely statistical evidence. A prominent line of argument—endorsed by Blome-Tillmann 2017; Smith 2018; and Littlejohn 2018—rejects the use of such evidence by appealing to epistemic norms that apply to individual inquirers. My aim in this paper is to rehabilitate purely statistical evidence by arguing that, given the broader aims of legal systems, there are scenarios in which relying on such evidence is appropriate. Along the way I explain why popular arguments appealing to individual epistemic norms to reject legal reliance on bare statistics are unconvincing, by showing that courts and individuals face different epistemic predicaments (in short, individuals can hedge when confronted with statistical evidence, whilst legal tribunals cannot). I also correct some misconceptions about legal practice that have found their way into the recent literature

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule

In this paper, a likelihood based evidence acquisition approach is proposed to acquire evidence from experts'assessments as recorded in historical datasets. Then a data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model is introduced to R&D project selection process by combining multiple pieces of evidence with different weights and reliabilities. As a result, the total belief degrees and the overall performance can be generated for ranking and selecting projects. Finally, a case study on the R&D project selection for the National Science Foundation of China is conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed model. The data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model for project evaluation and selection (1) utilizes experimental data to represent experts' assessments by using belief distributions over the set of final funding outcomes, and through this historic statistics it helps experts and applicants to understand the funding probability to a given assessment grade, (2) implies the mapping relationships between the evaluation grades and the final funding outcomes by using historical data, and (3) provides a way to make fair decisions by taking experts' reliabilities into account. In the data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model, experts play different roles in accordance with their reliabilities which are determined by their previous review track records, and the selection process is made interpretable and fairer. The newly proposed model reduces the time-consuming panel review work for both managers and experts, and significantly improves the efficiency and quality of project selection process. Although the model is demonstrated for project selection in the NSFC, it can be generalized to other funding agencies or industries.Comment: 20 pages, forthcoming in International Journal of Project Management (2019

A Case-Based Reasoning Method for Locating Evidence During Digital Forensic Device Triage

The role of triage in digital forensics is disputed, with some practitioners questioning its reliability for identifying evidential data. Although successfully implemented in the field of medicine, triage has not established itself to the same degree in digital forensics. This article presents a novel approach to triage for digital forensics. Case-Based Reasoning Forensic Triager (CBR-FT) is a method for collecting and reusing past digital forensic investigation information in order to highlight likely evidential areas on a suspect operating system, thereby helping an investigator to decide where to search for evidence. The CBR-FT framework is discussed and the results of twenty test triage examinations are presented. CBR-FT has been shown to be a more effective method of triage when compared to a practitioner using a leading commercial application