Maximizing the Information Obtained from Data Fusion

  • Ronald R. Yager
Part of the Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing book series (STUDFUZZ, volume 51)


We consider the question of conjuncting data and in particular the issue of the amount of information that results. It is shown that if the data being fused is non-conflicting then the maximal information is obtained by simply taking the intersection of the data. When the data is conflicting the use of the intersection can result in the fused value having less information then any of its components. In order to maximize the resulting information in this conflicting environment some meta knowledge must be introduced to adjudicate between conflicting data. Two approaches to address this problem are introduced. The first considers using only a subset of the observations to construct the fused value, a softening of the requirement that all observations be used. The basic rational of this approach is to calculate the fused value from a subset of observations that are not to conflicting and consisting of enough of the observations to be considered a credible fusion. Central to this approach is the introduction of meta-knowledge in the form of a measure of credibility associated with the use of different subsets of the observations. The second approach is based upon the introduction of a prioritization of the observations. In this approach an observation is essentially discounted if conflicts with higher priority observations.


Specificity Measure Fuzzy Subset Fuzzy Measure Membership Grade Possibility Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1].
    Zadeh, L. A., “A theory of approximate reasoning,” in Machine Intelligence, Vol. 9, Hayes, J., Michie, D., and Mikulich, L.I. (eds.), New York: Halstead Press, 149–194, 1979.Google Scholar
  2. [2].
    Yager, R. R., “Deductive approximate reasoning systems,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 3, 399–414, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3].
    Dubois, D. and Prade, H., “Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning Part I: Inference with possibility distributions,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40, 143–202, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4].
    Zadeh, L. A., “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1, 3–28, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5].
    Yager, R. R., “Entropy and specificity in a mathematical theory of evidence,” Int. J. of General Systems 9, 249–260, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6].
    Yager, R. R., “Measures of specificity for possibility distributions,” in Proc. of IEEE Workshop on Languages for Automation: Cognitive Aspects in Information Processing, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, 209–214, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. [7].
    Yager, R. R., “On the specificity of a possibility distribution,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 50, 279–292, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8].
    Yager, R. R., “Default knowledge and measures of specificity,” Information Sciences 61, 1–44, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9].
    Zadeh, L. A., “Fuzzy sets and information granularity,” in Advances in Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications, Gupta, M.M., Ragade, R.K., and Yager, R.R. (eds.), Amsterdam: North-Holland, 3–18, 1979.Google Scholar
  10. [10].
    Dubois, D. and Prade, H., Possibility Theory: An Approach to Computerized Processing of Uncertainty, Plenum Press: New York, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11].
    Zadeh, L. A., “PRUF-a meaning representation language for natural languages,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 10, 395–460, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12].
    Yager, R. R., Ovchinnikov, S., Tong, R. and Nguyen, H., Fuzzy Sets and Applications: Selected Papers by L. A. Zadeh, John Wiley, and Sons: New York, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [13].
    Yager, R. R., “Approximate reasoning as a basis for rule based expert systems,” IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 14, 636–643, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14].
    Dubois, D. and Prade, H., “Fuzzy sets in approximate reasoning Part 2: logical approaches,” Fuzzy Sets 40, 203–244, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15].
    Yager, R. R., “Conflict resolution in the fusion of fuzzy knowledge via information maximization,” International Journal of General Systems, (To Appear).Google Scholar
  16. [16].
    Sugeno, M., “Theory of fuzzy integrals and its application,” Doctoral Thesis, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1974.Google Scholar
  17. [17].
    Sugeno, M., “Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals: a survey,” in Fuzzy Automata and Decision Process, Gupta, M.M., Saridis, G.N., and Gaines, B.R. (eds.), Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub, 89–102, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. [18].
    Yager, R. R., “A general approach to criteria aggregation using fuzzy measures,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38, 187–213, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19].
    Yager, R. R., “Constrained OWA aggregation,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 81, 89–101, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald R. Yager
    • 1
  1. 1.Machine Intelligence InstituteIona CollegeNew RochelleUSA

Personalised recommendations