The study of alternative combination rules in DS theory when evidence is in conflict has emerged again recently as an interesting topic, especially in data/information fusion applications. These studies have mainly focused on investigating which alternative would be appropriate for which conflicting situation, under the assumption that a conflict is identified. The issue of detection (or identification) of conflict among evidence has been ignored. In this paper, we formally define when two basic belief assignments are in conflict. This definition deploys quantitative measures of both the mass of the combined belief assigned to the emptyset before normalization and the distance between betting commitments of beliefs. We argue that only when both measures are high, it is safe to say the evidence is in conflict. This definition can be served as a prerequisite for selecting appropriate combination rules.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 418 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.