Quality, Context, and Information Fusion

  • Galina L. RogovaEmail author
  • Lauro Snidaro
Part of the Information Fusion and Data Science book series (IFDS)


Context has received significant attention in recent years within the information fusion community as it can bring several advantages to fusion processes by allowing for refining estimates, explaining observations, constraining computations, and thereby improving the quality of inferences. At the same time, context utilization involves concerns about the quality of the contextual information and its relationship with the quality of information obtained from observations and estimations that may be of low fidelity, contradictory, or redundant. Knowledge of the quality of this information and its effect on the quality of context characterization can improve contextual knowledge. At the same time, knowledge about a current context can improve the quality of observations and fusion results. This chapter discusses the issues associated with context exploitation in information fusion, understanding and evaluating information quality in context and formal context representation, as well as the interrelationships among context, context quality, and quality of information. The chapter also presents examples of utilization of context and information quality in fusion applications.


Context and information fusion Context quality Information quality in context Context discovery 


  1. 1.
    G. Rogova, L. Snidaro, Considerations of context and quality in information fusion, in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Cambridge, UK, 2018), pp. 1929–1936Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Snidaro, J. García, J. Llinas, E. Blasch (eds.), Context-Enhanced Information Fusion – Boosting Real-World Performance with Domain Knowledge,Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Series (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Snidaro, J. Garcia, J. Llinas, Context-based information fusion: A survey and discussion. Inf. Fusion 25, 16–31. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.N. Steinberg, G. Rogova, Situation and context in data fusion and natural language understanding, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Cologne, 2008), pp. 1868–1875Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Snidaro, I. Visentini, J. Llinas, G.L. Foresti, Context in fusion: Some considerations in a JDL perspective, in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Istanbul, 2013), pp. 115–120Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.R. Anderson, Language, Memory and Thought (Routledge, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 1976)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Brézillon, J.-Ch. Pomerol, Misuse and nonuse of knowledge-based systems: The past experiences revisited, in Implementing Systems for Supporting Management Decisions, ed. by P. Humphreys, L. Bannon, A. McCosh, P. Migliarese, J. Ch. Pomerol, (Chapman and Hall, London, 1996), pp. 44–60Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. Dey, Understanding and using contex. Pers. Ubi. Comp. 5(1), 4–7 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Schilit, M. Theimer, Disseminating active map information to Mobile hosts. IEEE Netw. 8(5), 22–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Sycara, R. Glinton, B. Yu, J. Giampapa, S. Owens, M. Lewis, C. Grindle, An integrated approach to high-level information fusion. Inf. Fusion 10, 25–50. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Gómez-Romero, M.A. Serrano, J. García, J.M. Molina, G. Rogova, Context-based multi-level information fusion for harbor surveillance. Inf. Fusion 21, 173–186. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    L. Gong, Contextual modeling and applications, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 1, (IEEE, Waikoloa, HI, 2005), pp. 381–386Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Rogova, A. Steinberg, Formalization of “Context” for Information Fusion, in Context-Enhanced Information Fusion - Boosting Real-World Performance with Domain Knowledge, Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Series, ed. by L. Snidaro, J. García, J. Llinas, E. Blasch, (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016), pp. 27–44Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Rogova, E. Bosse, Information quality in information fusion, in Proceedings of the 13th International conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Llinas, G. Rogova, K. Barry, J. Scrofani, Reexamining computational support for intelligence analysis: A functional design for a future capability, in Proceedings of the SPIE DEFENSE + SECURITY Conference, vol. 10653, (SPIE, Orlando, 2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    F. Pichon, D. Dubois, T. Denœux, Relevance and truthfulness in information correction and fusion. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 53(2), 159–175. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Steinberg, G. Rogova, System-level use of contextual information, in Context-Enhanced Information Fusion – Boosting Real-World Performance with Domain Knowledge, Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition series, ed. by L. Snidaro, J. García, J. Llinas, E. Blasch, (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016), pp. 157–184Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Standard 8402, 3. I, International Organization of Standards, 1986Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Juran, A. Godfrey, Juran’s Quality Handbook, 5th edn. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Bovee, R.P. Srivastava, B. Mak, A conceptual framework and belief-function approach to assessing overall information quality. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 18, 51–74. (Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, 2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. Bisdikian, L. Kaplan, M. Srivastava, D.V. Thornley, R. Young, Building principles for a quality of information , specification for sensor information, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Seattle, 2009), pp. 1370–1377Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Wang, D. Strong, Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers. J. Man. Inf. Syst. 12(4), 5–34 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Helfert, Managing and measuring data quality in data warehousing, in Proceedings of the 17th World Multiconference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, vol. 38 (2001), pp. 55–65Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ph. Smets, Imperfect information: Imprecision – uncertainty, in Uncertainty Management in Information Systems: From Needs to Solutions, ed. by A. Motro, Ph Smets (Kluwer, Boston, 1997), pp. 225–254Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    G. Rogova, Information quality in information fusion and decision making with applications to crisis management, in Fusion Methodology in Crisis Management: Higher Level Fusion and Decision Making, ed. by G. Rogova, P. Scott (Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016), pp. 65–86Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D.M. Rousseau, S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt, C. Camerer, Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, Trust Theory: A Socio-Cognitive and Computational Model (Wiley, Chichester, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    S.B. Sitkin, N.L. Roth, Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organ. Sci. 4(3), 367–392 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    C.F. Chang, P. Harvey, A. Ghose, Combining credibility, in A Source Sensitive Argumentation System, ed. by G. Antoniou et al., in Proceedings of the, 4th Helenic Conference on AI, SETN 2006, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, 18–20 May 2006Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Bonelli, S. Felletti, F. Paglieri, From argumentative crisis to critical arguments: How to argue in the face of danger, in Fusion Methodology in Crisis Management: Higher Level Fusion and Decision Making, ed. by G. Rogova, P. Scott, (Springer, International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016), pp. 365–381Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    T. Saracevic, Relevance: A review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part II. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. eTech. 58(3), 1915–1933 (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    D. Walton, Relevance in Argumentation (Routledge, Oxfordshire, UK, 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D. Galles, J. Pearl, Axioms of causal relevance. Artif. Intell. 97, 9–43 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    T. Buchholz, A. Kupper, M. Schiffers, Quality of context information: What it is and why we need it, in Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop of the HP OpenView University Association (HPOVUA), vol. 200, (Infonomics-Consulting, Stuttgard, Germany, Geneva, 2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    M. Krause, I. Hochstatter, Challenges in Modelling and Using Quality of Context (QoC), in Mobility Aware Technologies and Applications, eds. by T. Magedanz, A. Karmouch, S. Pierre, I. Venieris, MATA2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3744, (Springer, 2005), pp. 324–333Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. Brezzilon, Context in problem solving: A survey. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 14(1), 47–80 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1999)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. Thagard, C.P. Shelley, Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence, in Logic and Scientific Methods, ed. by M.-L. Dalla Chiara et al., (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1997), pp. 413–427Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    J. Josephson, On the Logical Form of Abduction, AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Automated Abduction, (1990) pp. 140–144Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    T. Strang, C. Linnhoff-Popien, A context modeling survey, in Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Advanced Context Modelling, Reasoning and Management at UbiComp 2004, (Nottingham, 2004), pp. 34–41Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    B. Schilit, N. Adams, R. Want, Context-aware computing applications, in IEEE Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Applications, (IEEE, Santa Cruz, 1994)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    M. Kokar, C.J. Matheus, K. Baclawski, Ontology-based situation awareness, Inf. Fusion 10, 83–98, (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    J. Gómez-Romero, F. Bobillo, M. Delgado, Context representation and reasoning with formal ontologies, in Proceedings of the Activity Context Representation Workshop in the 25th AAAI Conference, (AAAI, San Francisco, 2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    J. McCarthy, Notes on formalizing context, in Proceedingsof the Thirteenth International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence, (Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, Chambery, 1993), pp. 555–560Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    M. Akman, M. Surav, The use of situation theory in context modeling. Comp. Intell. 13(3), 427–438 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. Barwise, J. Perry, The situation underground, in Working Papers in Semantics, vol. 1, (Stanford University Press, Redwood City, California, 1980)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    K. Devlin, Logic and Information (Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, 1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. George, J.L. Crassidis, T. Singh, Threat assessment using context-based tracking in a maritime environment, in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Fusion, (IEEE, Seattle, 2009), pp. 187–194Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    A. Burton-Jones, V.C. Storey, V. Sugumaran, P. Ahluwalia, A semiotic metrics suite for assessing the quality of ontologies. Data Knowl. Eng. 55(1), 84–102 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    S. Mc Gurk, C. Abela, J. Debattista, Towards ontology quality assessment, in Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Linked Data Quality (LDQ 2017), (Portorož, 2017)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    S. Zilberstein, Using Anytime Algorithms in Intelligent Systems. AI Magazine 17(3), 73–83 (AAAI, 1996)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    I. Visentini, L. Snidaro, Integration of contextual information for tracking refinement, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Fusion, vol. 5–8, (IEEE, Chicago, 2011)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    L. Snidaro, I. Visentini, K. Bryan, Fusing uncertain knowledge and evidence for maritime situational awareness via Markov Logic Networks. Inf. Fusion 21, 159–172 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    G. Rogova, J. Herrero, Contextual Knowledge and information fusion for Maritime Piracy surveillance, in Prediction and Recognition of Piracy Efforts Using Collaborative Human-Centric Information Systems, ed. by E. Shahbazian, G. Rogova, E. Bosse, (IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The State University of New York at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, and PhysicsUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations