A Solution for the Learning Problem in Evidential (Partially) Hidden Markov Models Based on Conditional Belief Functions and EM

  • Emmanuel RamassoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 610)


Evidential Hidden Markov Models (EvHMM) is a particular Evidential Temporal Graphical Model that aims at statistically representing the kynetics of a system by means of an Evidential Markov Chain and an observation model. Observation models are made of mixture of densities to represent the inherent variability of sensor measurements, whereas uncertainty on the latent structure, that is generally only partially known due to lack of knowledge, is managed by Dempster-Shafer’s theory of belief functions. This paper is dedicated to the presentation of an Expectation-Maximization procedure to learn parameters in EvHMM. Results demonstrate the high potential of this method illustrated on complex datasets originating from turbofan engines where the aim is to provide early warnings of malfunction and failure.


Evidential Temporal Graphical Model Evidential latent variable Markov chain Belief functions Parameter learning 



The author would like to express his gratitude to Michèle Rombaut, Denis Pellerin and Thierry Denoeux for discussions around inference in EvHMM and EM-based learning in HMM. This work has been carried out in the following projects: the CNRS-PEPS project “EVIPRO”, the “SMART COMPOSITES” project (FRI2). It also got support from the Laboratory of Excellence “ACTION” (reference ANR-11-LABX-01-01).


  1. 1.
    Baum, L.E., Petrie, T., Soules, G., Weiss, N.: A maximization technique occurring in the statistical analysis of probabilistic functions of Markov chains. Ann. Math. Stat. 41, 164–171 (1970)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishop, C.: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, New York (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Juesas, P., Ramasso, E.: Ascertainment-adjusted parameter estimation approach to improve robustness against misspecification of health monitoring methods. In: Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (2016).
  4. 4.
    Côme, E., Oukhellou, L., Denoeux, T., Aknin, P.: Learning from partially supervised data using mixture models and belief functions. Pattern Recogn. 42(3), 334–348 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delmotte, F., Smets, P.: Target identification based on the transferable belief model interpretation of Dempster-Shafer model. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 34(4), 457–471 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dempster, A., Laird, N., Rubin, D.: Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. 39(1), 1–38 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Denoeux, T.: Maximum likelihood estimation from uncertain data in the belief function framework. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 25(1), 119–130 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frederick, D., DeCastro, J., Litt, J.: User’s guide for the commercial modular aero-propulsion system simulation (C-MAPSS). Technical report, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio 44135, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen, J.L.W.V.: Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes. Acta Mathematica 30(1), 175–193 (1906)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naim, I., Gildea, D.: Convergence of the EM algorithm for gaussian mixtures with unbalanced mixing coefficients. In: Langford, J., Pineau, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-12), pp. 1655–1662. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patil, G.: Weighted Distributions, vol. 4. Wiley, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pieczynski, W.: Multisensor triplet Markov chains and theory of evidence. Int. J. Approximate Reasoning 45(1), 1–16 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rabiner, L.: A tutorial on hidden Markov models and selected applications in speech recognition. Proc. IEEE 77, 257–285 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ramasso, E.: Investigating computational geometry for failure prognostics. Int. J. Prognostics Health Manage. 5(5), 1–18 (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramasso, E., Denoeux, T.: Making use of partial knowledge about hidden states in HMMs: an approach based on belief functions. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 22(2), 395–405 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramasso, E., Rombaut, M., Pellerin, D.: Forward-backward-viterbi procedures in the transferable belief model for state sequence analysis using belief functions. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 405–417. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramasso, E., Saxena, A.: Performance benchmarking and analysis of prognostic methods for CMAPSS datasets. Int. J. Prognostics Health Manage. 5(2), 1–15 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramasso, E.: Inference and learning in evidential discrete-latent Markov models. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. (2016). submitted, ver. 2, 30 January 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ramasso, E.: Segmentation of CMAPSS health indicators into discrete states for sequence-based classification and prediction purposes. Technical report 6839, FEMTO-ST institute, January 2016Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saxena, A., Goebel, K., Simon, D., Eklund, N.: Damage propagation modeling for aircraft engine run-to-failure simulation. In: IEEE Prognostics and Health Management (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Serir, L., Ramasso, E., Zerhouni, N.: Time-sliced temporal evidential networks: the case of evidential HMM with application to dynamical system analysis. In: 2011 IEEE Conference on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM), pp. 1–10, June 2011Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smets, P.: Beliefs functions: the disjunctive rule of combination and the generalized Bayesian theorem. IJAR 9, 1–35 (1993)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vannoorenberghe, P., Smets, P.: Partially supervised learning by a Credal EM approach. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3571, pp. 956–967. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vinh, N., Epps, J., Bailey, J.: Information theoretic measures for clustering comparison: is a correction for chance necessary? In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1073–1080 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Mechanics, and Department of Automatic Control and Micro-Mechatronic Systems, FEMTO-ST InstituteUMR CNRS 6174 - UBFC/ENSMM/UTBMBesançonFrance

Personalised recommendations