IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v28y2000i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling

Author

Listed:
  • Beynon, Malcolm
  • Curry, Bruce
  • Morgan, Peter

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to describe the potential offered by the Dempster-Shafer theory (DST) of evidence as a promising improvement on "traditional" approaches to decision analysis. Dempster-Shafer techniques originated in the work of Dempster on the use of probabilities with upper and lower bounds. They have subsequently been popularised in the literature on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Expert Systems, with particular emphasis placed on combining evidence from different sources. In the paper we introduce the basic concepts of the DST of evidence, briefly mentioning its origins and comparisons with the more traditional Bayesian theory. Following this we discuss recent developments of this theory including analytical and application areas of interest. Finally we discuss developments via the use of an example incorporating DST with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:1:p:37-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(99)00033-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Lootsma, Freerk A., 1997. "Multicriteria decision analysis in a decision tree," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 442-451, September.
    2. Andijani, A. A., 1998. "A multi-criterion approach for Kanban allocations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 483-493, August.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty, 1977. "The Sudan Transport Study," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 8(1-part-2), pages 37-57, November.
    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. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    2. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    3. Elvio MATTIOLI & Giuseppe RICCIARDO LAMONICA, 2004. "An Empirical Analysis of Methods to Construct Indices for Consistent Multiple Comparisons," Working Papers 219, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    4. Jamal, Taskin & Urmee, Tania & Shafiullah, G.M., 2020. "Planning of off-grid power supply systems in remote areas using multi-criteria decision analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    5. Saud Alshehri & Yacine Rezgui & Haijiang Li, 2015. "Disaster community resilience assessment method: a consensus-based Delphi and AHP approach," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 78(1), pages 395-416, August.
    6. Ruth Y. Dicdican & Yacov Y. Haimes, 2005. "Relating multiobjective decision trees to the multiobjective risk impact analysis method," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 95-108.
    7. Turan Arslan, 2017. "A Weighted Euclidean Distance based TOPSIS Method for Modeling Public Subjective Judgments," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 34(03), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    9. Zou, Guang & Faber, Michael Havbro & González, Arturo & Banisoleiman, Kian, 2021. "Computing the value of information from periodic testing in holistic decision making under uncertainty," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    10. Memtsas, Dimitris P., 2003. "Multiobjective programming methods in the reserve selection problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(3), pages 640-652, November.
    11. Dinçer, Hasan & Yüksel, Serhat, 2019. "An integrated stochastic fuzzy MCDM approach to the balanced scorecard-based service evaluation," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 93-112.
    12. Turan Arslan, 2009. "A hybrid model of fuzzy and AHP for handling public assessments on transportation projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 97-112, January.
    13. John Butler & Douglas J. Morrice & Peter W. Mullarkey, 2001. "A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Ranking and Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(6), pages 800-816, June.
    14. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 148-164, July.
    15. Saaty, Thomas L., 1979. "Applications of analytical hierarchies," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-20.

    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:jomega:v:28:y:2000:i:1:p:37-50. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.