Belief Functions Theory and

Applications Third International

Conference BELIEF 2014 Oxford UK
September 26 28 2014 Proceedings 1st
Edition Fabio Cuzzolin (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/belief-functions-theory-and-applications-third-internati
onal-conference-belief-2014-oxford-uk-september-26-28-2014-proceedings-1st-editio
n-fabio-cuzzolin-eds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Belief Functions Theory and Applications 5th

International Conference BELIEF 2018 Compiègne France
September 17 21 2018 Proceedings Sébastien Destercke

https://textbookfull.com/product/belief-functions-theory-and-
applications-5th-international-conference-belief-2018-compiegne-
france-september-17-21-2018-proceedings-sebastien-destercke/

Adaptive and Intelligent Systems Third International

Conference ICAIS 2014 Bournemouth UK September 8 10
2014 Proceedings 1st Edition Abdelhamid Bouchachia
(Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/adaptive-and-intelligent-
systems-third-international-conference-icais-2014-bournemouth-uk-
september-8-10-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-abdelhamid-
bouchachia-eds/

Developments in Language Theory 18th International

Conference DLT 2014 Ekaterinburg Russia August 26 29
2014 Proceedings 1st Edition Arseny M. Shur

https://textbookfull.com/product/developments-in-language-
theory-18th-international-conference-dlt-2014-ekaterinburg-
russia-august-26-29-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-arseny-m-shur/

Case Based Reasoning Research and Development 22nd

International Conference ICCBR 2014 Cork Ireland
September 29 2014 October 1 2014 Proceedings 1st
Edition Luc Lamontagne
https://textbookfull.com/product/case-based-reasoning-research-
and-development-22nd-international-conference-iccbr-2014-cork-
ireland-september-29-2014-october-1-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-
Computational Logistics 5th International Conference
ICCL 2014 Valparaiso Chile September 24 26 2014
Proceedings 1st Edition Rosa G. González-Ramírez

https://textbookfull.com/product/computational-logistics-5th-
international-conference-iccl-2014-valparaiso-chile-
september-24-26-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-rosa-g-gonzalez-
ramirez/

System Analysis and Modeling Models and Reusability 8th

International Conference SAM 2014 Valencia Spain
September 29 30 2014 Proceedings 1st Edition Daniel
Amyot
https://textbookfull.com/product/system-analysis-and-modeling-
models-and-reusability-8th-international-conference-
sam-2014-valencia-spain-september-29-30-2014-proceedings-1st-
edition-daniel-amyot/

Intelligent Systems 2014 Proceedings of the 7th IEEE

International Conference Intelligent Systems IS 2014
September 24 26 2014 Warsaw Poland Volume 1
Mathematical Foundations Theory Analyses 1st Edition P.
Angelov
https://textbookfull.com/product/intelligent-
systems-2014-proceedings-of-the-7th-ieee-international-
conference-intelligent-systems-
is-2014-september-24-26-2014-warsaw-poland-volume-1-mathematical-
foundations-theory-analyses-1st-editi/
Knowledge Engineering and the Semantic Web 5th
International Conference KESW 2014 Kazan Russia
September 29 October 1 2014 Proceedings 1st Edition
Pavel Klinov
https://textbookfull.com/product/knowledge-engineering-and-the-
semantic-web-5th-international-conference-kesw-2014-kazan-russia-
september-29-october-1-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-pavel-klinov/

Public Key Cryptography PKC 2014 17th International

Conference on Practice and Theory in Public Key
Cryptography Buenos Aires Argentina March 26 28 2014
Proceedings 1st Edition Hugo Krawczyk (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/public-key-cryptography-
pkc-2014-17th-international-conference-on-practice-and-theory-in-
public-key-cryptography-buenos-aires-argentina-
LNAI 8764 Fabio Cuzzolin (Ed.)

Belief Functions:
Theory and Applications
Third International Conference, BELIEF 2014
Oxford, UK, September 26–28, 2014
Proceedings

123
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 8764

Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science

LNAI Series Editors

Randy Goebel
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Yuzuru Tanaka
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Wolfgang Wahlster
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

LNAI Founding Series Editor

Joerg Siekmann
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
Fabio Cuzzolin (Ed.)

Belief Functions:
Theory andApplications
Third International Conference, BELIEF 2014
Oxford, UK, September 26-28, 2014
Proceedings

13
Volume Editor
Fabio Cuzzolin
Oxford Brookes University
Department of Computing and Communication Technologies
Wheatley Campus
Oxford OX33 1HX, UK
E-mail: fabio.cuzzolin@brookes.ac.uk

ISSN 0302-9743 e-ISSN 1611-3349

ISBN 978-3-319-11190-2 e-ISBN 978-3-319-11191-9
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-11191-9
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014948940

LNCS Sublibrary: SL 7 – Artificial Intelligence

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location,
in ist current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Permissions for use
may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution
under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication,
neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any errors or
omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein.
Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by Scientific Publishing Services, Chennai, India
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
 Preface

The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster–

Shafer theory, is a well-established general framework for reasoning with
uncertainty, with well-understood connections to other frameworks such as prob-
ability, possibility, and imprecise probability theories. First introduced by Arthur
P. Dempster in the context of statistical inference, the theory was later developed
by Glenn Shafer into a general framework for modelling epistemic uncertainty.
These early contributions have been the starting points of many important
developments, including the transferable belief model and the theory of hints.
The series of biennial BELIEF conferences is dedicated to the confronta-
tion of ideas, the reporting of recent achievements, and the presentation of the
wide range of applications of this theory. This conference series started in Brest,
France, in 2010, while the second edition was held in Compiègne, France, in May
2012. The conference series is organized by the Belief Functions and Applications
Society (BFAS).
The Third International Conference on Belief Functions, BELIEF 2014, was
held during September 26–28 at St. Hugh’s College, Oxford, UK. Oxford is a
world-famous university city, home of two major universities, Oxford University
and the younger but very active Brookes University. It is conveniently located 60
miles north-west of London, and enjoys direct coach links with all major London
airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, and Stansted.
The aim of the conference was to provide opportunities to exchange ideas and
present new results on the theory of belief functions and related areas such as
random sets, imprecise probability, and possibility theory. Original contributions
were solicited on theoretical aspects (including mathematical foundations, deci-
sion making, combination rules, continuous belief functions, independence and
graphical models, statistical estimation, etc.), as well as on applications to all
areas of computer science, business, and engineering, including data fusion, pat-
tern recognition and machine learning, tracking, data mining, signal and image
processing, computer vision, medical diagnosis, business decision, risk analysis,
climatic change, and many others.
Authors of selected papers from the BELIEF 2014 conference were invited to
submit extended versions of their papers for inclusion in a dedicated special issue
of Elsevier’s International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. We received 56
submissions, of which 47 were accepted (83%). This edited volume is a collection
of all the accepted papers in their final, camera-ready form. There were two
invited talks by major researchers in AI. Nando de Freitas, Professor of Computer
Science at Oxford University, gave a talk on the challenges facing the wider field
of AI in the near future. Thomas Lukasiewicz, also Professor of Computer Science
at Oxford University, spoke about “Uncertainty in the Semantic Web,” outlining
VI Preface

how uncertainty is dealt with in semantic web applications, and illustrating in

more detail some of his most recent published work.
The Program Committee (PC) consisted of 45 academics with diverse re-
search interests and expertise, ranging from experts in the theory and applica-
tion of belief functions to scientists active in imprecise probabilities and random
sets, mainstream statisticians, computer scientists, and engineers. Papers were
reviewed in blind mode, with each paper assigned to at least three reviewers,
sometimes four or five. While 35 papers were accepted after the first round of
reviews (62%), 14 others underwent a rebuttal stage in which authors were asked
to revise their paper in accordance to the reviews, and prepare an extensive re-
sponse addressing the reviewers’ concerns. The final decision was made by the
program chair, sometimes with the assistance of the reviewers. As a result, 12 ad-
ditional papers were accepted for publication in the proceedings, and the quality
of the manuscripts saw a significant improvement.
We ensured that all papers received a fair and objective evaluation by ex-
perts, with particular attention paid to highlighting strengths and weaknesses of
papers. The 162 submitted reviews were, on average, of a high-quality standard
when compared with other well-established international conferences, providing
a detailed list of suggestions and criticisms that in the end contributed greatly
to the quality of the material published in this volume. The rebuttal stage, in-
troduced for the first time in this edition of BELIEF, was a clear success and we
recommend its adoption for the future editions of the conference as well.
For the first time we introduced a best paper and a best student paper award,
to give recognition to the authors of substantial contributions to the theory
of belief functions. We hope this will be a long-standing practice. We had a
discussion panel on the status and future of the theory of belief functions, which
we believe helped bring our community together and set clear targets for its
future development and further growth.
The Third International Conference on Belief Functions enjoyed the support
of several sponsors, including Onera - The French Aerospace Lab - and Oxford
Brookes University, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment. Elsevier -
“the leading provider of science information” - provided a 1,000-euro prize to
go to the authors of the best paper, selected by the BFAS board of directors
from a shortlist based on the reviewers’ scores. ISIF, International Society of
Information Fusion, was the main contributor and asked to fund a best stu-
dent paper award, whose lead author received a free student registration for
the FUSION 2015 international conference. We would like to thank Onera’s
Alain Appriou, ISIF’s Anne-Laure Jousselme, Oxford Brookes’ Ray Ogden, and
Thierry Denœux, Editor-in-Chief of IJAR, for their assistance in securing these
sponsorships.
We would like to sincerely thank authors of all submissions – those whose
papers made it into the program and those whose papers did not. We, and the
PC as a whole, were impressed by the quality of submissions contributed from
all around the world, from the USA to France, Tunisia, China, and Thailand,
among others.
 Preface VII

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to the PC. We were very
fortunate that so many talented people put such an inordinate amount of time
to write reviews and actively participate in discussions for nearly three weeks.
They quickly responded to our requests for extra reviews, opinions, comments,
comparisons, and inputs. We also would like to thank the external reviewers,
some contacted by us directly and some through PC members, who significantly
contributed to the comprehensive evaluation of papers. A list of PC members
and external reviewers appears after this note.
Finally, we would like to thank Arnaud Martin for his help with managing
registration and accounts, HG3 in the person of Nicola Peel for their help with
providing accommodation at discounted rates in a difficult area like Oxford’s,
Anne-Laure Jousselme for her valuable help in building a mailing list of authors
of belief functions papers, and Alfred Hofmann, Anna Kramer, and their col-
leagues at Springer for providing a meticulous service for the timely production
of this volume.

July 2014 Fabio Cuzzolin

 BELIEF 2014

Third International Conference on Belief Functions

Oxford, UK

September 26–28, 2014

General Chair
Fabio Cuzzolin Oxford Brookes University, UK

Honorary Chairs
Arthur P. Dempster Harvard University, USA
Glenn Shafer Rutgers University, USA

Program Committee
Alessandro Antonucci IDSIA, Switzerland
Alain Appriou Onera, France
Boutheina Ben Yaghlane IHEC Carthage, Tunisia
Malcolm Beynon Cardiff Business School, UK
Yaxin Bi University of Ulster, UK
Isabelle Bloch ENST - CNRS, France
Mohamed Boudaren Ecole Militaire Polytechnique, Algeria
Thomas Burger CNRS, France
Veronique Cherfaoui UTC – CNRS, France
Olivier Colot Université Lille 1, France
Frank Coolen Durham University, UK
Milan Daniel Institute of Computer Science, Czech Republic
Yong Deng Southwest University, China
Thierry Denoeux Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France
Sebastien Destercke Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France
Jean Dezert Onera, France
Didier Dubois IRIT/RPDMP, France
Zied Elouedi LARODEC, ISG de Tunis, Tunisia
Scott Ferson RAMAS, USA
Michel Grabisch Université Paris 1, France
Van Nam Huyn JAIST, Japan
X BELIEF 2014

Radim Jirousek UTIA, Czech Republic

Anne-Laure Jousselme NATO CMRE, Italy
Tomas Kroupa UTIA, Czech Republic
Jonathan Lawry University of Bristol, UK
Éric Lefevre Université d’Artois, France
Shoumei Li Beijing University of Technology, China
Chuanhai Liu Purdue University, USA
Liping Liu University of Akron, USA
Weiru Liu Queen’s University Belfast, UK
Arnaud Martin Université de Rennes1 / IRISA, France
David Mercier Université d’Artois, France
Theodore Mock University of California at Riverside, USA
Serafin Moral University of Granada, Spain
Hung T. Nguyen New Mexico State University, USA
Gavin Powell EADS, UK
Michele Rombaut GIPSA-lab, France
Johan Schubert Swedish Defence Research Agency, Sweden
Prakash Shenoy Kansas University, USA
Paul Snow USA
Rajendra P. Srivastava Kansas University, USA
Jirina Vejnarova UTIA, Czech Republic
Ronald Yager Iona College, USA
Jian-Bo Yang University of Manchester, UK

Steering Committee
Arnaud Martin Université de Rennes1/IRISA, France
Thierry Denoeux Université de Technologie de Compiègne,
France

Additional Reviewers
Frédéric Pichon Matthew Roberts Michael Zhu
Narjes Ben Hariz Wojciech Pieczynski Ryan Martin
Helene Soubaras Mohamed Anis Bach Xiao Wang
Samir Hachour Tobji
 BELIEF 2014 XI

Sponsors
Silver Sponsors

International Society of Information Fusion

Oxford Brookes University  Faculty of

Technology, Design and the Environment

Bronze sponsors

Onera  The French Aerospace Lab

Elsevier  the leading provider of science and

health information
 Table of Contents

Belief Combination
α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
John Klein, Mehena Loudahi, Jean-Marc Vannobel, and Olivier Colot

Truthfulness in Contextual Information Correction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Frédéric Pichon, David Mercier, François Delmotte, and Éric Lefèvre

The Choice of Generalized Dempster-Shafer Rules for Aggregating

Belief Functions Based on Imprecision Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Andrey G. Bronevich and Igor N. Rozenberg

General Schemes of Combining Rules and the Quality Characteristics

of Combining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Alexander Lepskiy

An Optimal Unified Combination Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Yanyan He and M. Yousuff Hussaini

Machine Learning
Evidential Logistic Regression for Binary SVM Classifier Calibration . . . 49
Philippe Xu, Franck Davoine, and Thierry Denoeux

The Evidence-Theoretic k -NN Rule for Rank-Ordered Data:

Application to Predict an Individual’s Source of Loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Supanika Leurcharusmee, Peerapat Jatukannyaprateep,
Songsak Sriboonchitta, and Thierry Denœux

Belief Hierarchical Clustering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Wiem Maalel, Kuang Zhou, Arnaud Martin, and Zied Elouedi

Logistic Regression of Soft Labeled Instances via the Evidential EM

Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Benjamin Quost

Training and Evaluating Classifiers from Evidential Data: Application

to E 2 M Decision Tree Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Nicolas Sutton-Charani, Sébastien Destercke, and Thierry Denoeux

Reflections on DS/AHP: Lessons to Be Learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Malcolm J. Beynon
XIV Table of Contents

Applications 1
Evidential Database: A New Generalization of Databases? . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Ahmed Samet, Éric Lefèvre, and Sadok Ben Yahia

Belief Approach for Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Salma Ben Dhaou, Mouloud Kharoune, Arnaud Martin, and
Boutheina Ben Yaghlane

Methods Handling Accident and Traffic Jam Information with Belief

Functions in VANETs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Mira Bou Farah, David Mercier, François Delmotte,
Éric Lefèvre, and Sylvain Lagrue

Designing a Belief Function-Based Accessibility Indicator to Improve

Web Browsing for Disabled People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Jean-Christophe Dubois, Yolande Le Gall, and Arnaud Martin

Belief Reasoning Model for Mapping Public Participation in Transport

Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Nopadon Kronprasert and Antti P. Talvitie

Theory 1
Some Notes on Canonical Decomposition and Separability of a Belief
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Xiaolu Ke, Liyao Ma, and Yong Wang

A Relational Representation of Belief Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Liping Liu

Modeling Qualitative Assessments under the Belief Function

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Amel Ennaceur, Zied Elouedi, and Éric Lefèvre

A Study on Generalising Bayesian Inference to Evidential Reasoning . . . 180

Jian-Bo Yang and Dong-Ling Xu

Partial Ranking by Incomplete Pairwise Comparisons Using Preference

Subsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Johan Schubert

Applications 2
Mathematical Theory of Evidence in Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Wlodzimierz Filipowicz
 Table of Contents XV

Application of Belief Functions Theory to Non Destructive Testing of

Industrial Pieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Ahmad Osman, Valerie Kaftandjian, and Ulf Hassler
Predicting Stock Returns in the Capital Asset Pricing Model Using
Quantile Regression and Belief Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
Kittawit Autchariyapanitkul, Somsak Chanaim,
Songsak Sriboonchitta, and Thierry Denœux
Evidential Object Recognition Based on Information Gain
Maximization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Thomas Reineking and Kerstin Schill
Evidence-Based Modelling of Organizational Social Capital with
Incomplete Data: An NCaRBS Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Malcolm J. Beynon and Rhys Andrews
Outliers in Evidential C-Means: An Empirical Exploration Using
Survey Data on Organizational Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Malcolm J. Beynon and Rhys Andrews

Networks
Causal Compositional Models in Valuation-Based Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
Radim Jiroušek and Prakash P. Shenoy
Merging Possibilistic Networks through a Disjunctive Mode . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Faiza Titouna and Salem Benferhat
On the Estimation of Mass Functions Using Self Organizing Maps . . . . . . 275
Imen Hammami, Jean Dezert, Grégoire Mercier, and Atef Hamouda
Second-Order Belief Hidden Markov Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
Jungyeul Park, Mouna Chebbah, Siwar Jendoubi, and Arnaud Martin
Learning Parameters in Directed Evidential Networks with Conditional
Belief Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Narjes Ben Hariz and Boutheina Ben Yaghlane

Theory 2
Econometric Forecasting Using Linear Regression and Belief
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Orakanya Kanjanatarakul, Philai Lertpongpiroon,
Sombat Singkharat, and Songsak Sriboonchitta
Modelling and Fusion of Imperfect Implication Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Janith N. Heendeni, Kamal Premaratne, Manohar N. Murthi, and
Matthias Scheutz
XVI Table of Contents

Conflict between Belief Functions: A New Measure Based on Their

Non-conflicting Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Milan Daniel

On Marginal Problem in Evidence Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

Jiřina Vejnarová

Information Fusion
Multi-Sensor Fusion Using Evidential SLAM for Navigating a Probe
through Deep Ice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Joachim Clemens and Thomas Reineking

Belief Fusion of Predictions of Industries in China’s Stock Market . . . . . . 348

Yongjun Xu, Lin Wu, Xianbin Wu, and Zhiwei Xu

An Evidential Fusion Rule for Ambient Intelligence for Activity

Recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
Faouzi Sebbak, Farid Benhammadi, Sofiane Bouznad,
Abdelghani Chibani, and Yacine Amirat

Evidential Fusion for Sentiment Polarity Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365

Yaxin Bi

Data Association
On the Quality of Optimal Assignment for Data Association . . . . . . . . . . 374
Jean Dezert and Kaouthar Benameur

Data Association for Object Enumeration Using Belief Function

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383
Wafa Rekik, Sylvie Le Hégarat-Mascle, Cyrille André,
Abdelaziz Kallel, Roger Reynaud, and Ahmed Ben Hamida

A Novel Methodology for Target Classification Based on Dempster-

Shafer Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Hasan Ihsan Turhan, Mubeccel Demirekler, and Melih Gunay

A New Parameterless Credal Method to Track-to-Track Assignment

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
Samir Hachour, François Delmotte, and David Mercier

Geometry
Geometric Interpretations of Conflict: A Viewpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
Thomas Burger
 Table of Contents XVII

Fast Computation of Lp Norm-Based Specialization Distances between

Bodies of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
Mehena Loudahi, John Klein, Jean-Marc Vannobel, and Olivier Colot

New Distance Measures of Evidence Based on Belief Intervals . . . . . . . . . 432

Deqiang Han, Jean Dezert, and Yi Yang

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443

 α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions

John Klein, Mehena Loudahi, Jean-Marc Vannobel, and Olivier Colot

Lille1 University, LAGIS UMR CNRS 8219,

avenue Carl Gauss, cité scientifique, 59650 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France
{john.klein,mehena.loudahi,jean-marc.vannobel,
olivier.colot}@univ-lille1.fr
http://www.lagis.cnrs.fr

Abstract. The set of α-junctions is the set of linear associative and

commutative combination operators for belief functions. Consequently,
the properties of α-junctive rules make them particularly attractive on
a theoretic point of view. However, they are rarely used in practice ex-
cept for the α = 1 case which corresponds to the widely used and well
understood conjunctive and disjunctive rules. The lack of success of α-
junctions when α < 1 is mainly explained by two reasons. First, they
require a greater computation load due to a more complex mathematical
definition. Second, the mass function obtained after combination is hard
to interpret and sometimes counter-intuitive. Pichon and Denœux [4]
brought a significant contribution to circumvent both of these two lim-
itations. In this article, it is intended to pursue these efforts toward a
better understanding of α-junctions. To that end, this study is focused
on the behavior of α-junctions when categorical mass functions are used
as entries of an α-junctive combination rule. It is shown that there ex-
ists a conjunctive and a disjunctive canonical decomposition of the mass
function obtained after combination.

Keywords: evidence theory, Dempster-Shafer theory, combination rules,

α-junctions, categorical mass functions.

1 Introduction
The belief function theory (BFT) is an appealing framework for reasoning under
uncertainty when imperfect data need to be aggregated through an information
fusion process. Indeed, imprecise and uncertain pieces of evidence can be effi-
ciently represented and aggregated as part of the BFT. Combination rules are
well-defined mathematical operators designed for such a purpose.
In [9], Smets introduced a family of combination rules known as α-junctions.
This family is the union of two sub-families: the α-conjunctive rules and the α-
disjunctive rules. These rules possess interesting properties, each of them being
clearly justified in an information fusion context. When the parameter α is set
to 1, two classical rules are retrieved: the conjunctive and disjunctive rules.
However, for other values of α, performing the combination requires an increased
computation time and the results are sometimes hard to interpret.

F. Cuzzolin (Ed.): BELIEF 2014, LNAI 8764, pp. 1–10, 2014.


c Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
2 J. Klein et al.

Pichon and Denœux [4] alleviated these drawbacks. First, they explained that
combination results are far better understood if α is viewed as a parameter
related to the truthfulness of information sources. In addition, they provided
means to fasten α-junction computations.
Besides, it is known that the BFT restricted to categorical mass functions
equipped with the conjunctive and disjunctive rules boils down to Cantor’s set
theory. In this article, it is intended to analyze the same matter when the con-
junctive and disjunctive rules are replaced with α-junctions for a given α < 1.
Pichon already briefly discussed this matter in [6]. Some additional results or
analyses are given for the direct computation of combined categorical mass func-
tions as well as for other set-functions representing combined evidence (common-
ality, implicability, conjunctive and disjunctive weight functions). In addition, a
conjunctive and a disjunctive canonical decomposition of these mass functions
are also introduced. In section 2 some mathematical notations are given and
some definitions are re-called. Section 3 and 4 present the obtained results for
α-conjunctive and α-disjunctive rules respectively. Section 5 concludes the paper.

2 Belief Function Framework: Notations and Definitions

In this section, mathematical notations for classical belief function concepts are
given. The reader is expected to be familiar with belief function basics and
consequently some definitions are not recalled. More material on belief functions
basics is found for instance in [1]. A greater stress is given to a reminder on
α-junctions.

2.1 Belief Function Basics

Suppose one has collected several bodies of evidence {Evi }M
i=1 . For a given body
of evidence Evi , the corresponding mass function representing this piece of
evidence is denoted by mi . Mass functions are set-functions with respect to a
frame of discernment denoted by Ω. The power set 2Ω is the set of all subsets
of Ω and it is the domain of mass functions. For any A ∈ 2Ω , the cardinality
of this set is denoted by |A| and |Ω| = n. The cardinality of 2Ω is denoted by
N = 2n . Mass functions have [0, 1] as codomain and they sum to one. A focal
element of a mass function mi is a set A ⊆ Ω such that mi (A) > 0. A mass
function having only one focal element A is called a categorical mass function
and it is denoted by mA .
Several alternatives for evidence representation are commonly used in the
BFT. The belief and commonality functions beli and qi are respectively the
inverse Möbius and inverse co-Möbius transforms of the mass function mi . The
plausibility function pli is the conjugate of beli and the implicability func-
tion bi is such that ∀X ⊆ Ω, bi (X) = beli (X) + mi (∅). There is a one-to-one
correspondence between a mass function mi and any of these four functions.
 α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions 3

If the reliability of the evidence encoded in a mass function can be evaluated

through a coefficient α ∈ [0, 1], then a so-called discounting operation on m
can be performed. A discounted mass function is denoted by mα and we have :

mα = (1 − α)m + αmΩ . (1)

α is called the discounting rate. Since mΩ represents a state of ignorance, this

categorical mass function is called the vacuous mass function. Consequently,
setting α = 1 turns a mass function into the neutral element of the conjunctive
rule and its corresponding evidence is discarded from further processing.
Another useful concept is the negation m of a mass function m. The function
m is such that ∀A ⊆ Ω, m(A) = m(A) with A = Ω \ A.

2.2 Mass Function Combination Using α-Junctions

In this subsection, a brief presentation of α-junctions is proposed. A thorough
presentation is provided in [4]. Suppose f is a combination operator for mass
functions, i.e., m12 = f (m1 , m2 ) with m12 a mass function depending only on
two initial mass functions m1 and m2 . Such an operator is an α-junction if it
possesses the following properties [9]:
– Linearity1 : ∀λ ∈ [0, 1] and for any other mass function m we have
f (m, λm1 + (1 − λ) m2 ) = λf (m, m1 ) + (1 − λ) f (m, m2 ),
– Commutativity: f (m1 , m2 ) = f (m2 , m1 ),
– Associativity: f (f (m1 , m2 ) , m3 ) = f (m1 , f (m2 , m3 )),
– Neutral element: ∃me | ∀m, f (m, me ) = m,
– Anonymity: for any σ extending by set-union on 2Ω a permutation on Ω,
f (m1 ◦ σ, m2 ◦ σ) = m12 ◦ σ,
– Context preservation: pl1 (X) = 0 and pl2 (X) = 0 =⇒ pl12 (X) = 0.
The justifications behind these properties are given in [9]. In the same article,
Smets also proves that the neutral element can be either m∅ or mΩ . Depending
on this, two sub-families arise: the α-disjunctive rules denoted by ∪
α
and the α-
conjunctive rules denoted by  . For the sake of clarity, the following notations
∩
α

will be used: m1∪α 2 = m1 ∪ m2 and m1∩α 2 = m1 

α α
∩ m2 . Pichon and Denœux [4]

provided the following computation formulae: ∀X ⊆ Ω, ∀α ∈ [0, 1]


m1∩α 2 (X) = m1 (A) m2 (B) α|C| α|C| , (2)
(A∩B)∪(A∩B∩C)=X

m1∪α 2 (X) = m1 (A) m2 (B) α|C| α|C| , (3)
(A∩B)∪(A∩B)∪(A∩B∩C)=X

with α = 1 − α. Note that they also provide faster means to compute the
combined mass function using matrix calculus. It is also noteworthy that, if
1
The operator is linear on the vector space spanned by categorical mass functions
but the output of the operator remains a mass function only in case of convex
combination.
4 J. Klein et al.

α = 1, the classical conjunctive and disjunctive rules are retrieved. We denote

these rules by 
∩ =  ∩
1
and by 
∪ = 
1
∪ .

Concerning the interpretation of α-junctions, Pichon and Denœux [4] state

that for any ω ∈ Ω:
– for α-conjunctions, α is understood as the belief that at least one of the
sources tells the truth, given that the event {ω} is true,
– for α-disjunctions, α is understood as the plausibility that both sources tell
the truth, given that the event {ω} is true.
In [6], Pichon gives further explanations and justifications of this interpretation.
He shows that α-conjunctions are understood as a particular case of a combi-
nation process introduced in [7] where meta-knowledge on the truthfulness of
information sources is formalized.

3 α-Conjunctive Combination of Categorical Mass

Functions
In this section, several results related to the combination of categorical mass
functions using an α-conjunctive rule are given. A straightforward formula for
the computation of α-conjunction of categorical mass functions is evoked in [6].
We state this result in a slightly more formal way:
Proposition 1. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:

α|AΔB|−|X| α|X|−|A∩B| if A ∩ B ⊆ X ⊆ AΔB
mA∩α B (X) = , (4)
0 otherwise

with Δ the set symmetric difference.

Proof. A sketch of proof is already given in [6]. We provide a few more details
in here. Applying equation (2) with categorical mass functions gives:

mA∩α B (X) = α|C| α|C|
C⊆Ω
(A∩B)∪(A∩B∩C)=X

Observing that no subset C can satisfy (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ B ∩ C) = X unless

A∩B ⊆ X ⊆ AΔB accounts for the two seperate cases in equation (4) depending
on the condition A ∩ B ⊆ X ⊆ AΔB.
Suppose A ∩ B ⊆ X ⊆ AΔB is true. Let C1 = C ∩ (A ∪ B) and C2 =
C ∩ (A ∪ B). Since A ∪ B together with A ∪ B is a partition of Ω, one has
C1 ∪ C2 = C and C1 ∩ C2 = ∅. Observing that (A ∩ B) ∪ (A ∩ B ∩ C) =
(A ∩ B) ∪ C2 = X =⇒ C2 = X \ (A ∩ B), we deduce that choosing C is
tantamount to choosing C1 which lives in 2A∪B . This gives:
 α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions 5


mA∩α B (X) = α|C1 ∪X\(A∩B)| α|C1 ∪X\(A∩B)|
C1 ⊆A∪B
 α |C1 |
= αn−|X|+|A∩B| α|X|−|A∩B| /α
C1 ⊆A∪B
n−|X|+|A∩B| |X|−|A∩B| α
 |A∪B|
=α α /α + 1
= α|AΔB|−|X| α|X|−|A∩B| .
Figure 1 illustrates the variety of potential focal sets of mass function mA∩α B .
First It can be noted that according to proposition 1:
A ∪ B = Ω =⇒ mA∩α B = mA∩B .

Fig. 1. Example of focal sets of mass function mA∩α B

When A∪B = Ω, proposition 1 also sheds light on the fact that the α-conjunction
of two deterministic sets yields a random set2 [3]. This means that some latent
uncertainty has been unveiled by the combination process and that this uncer-
tainty is not encoded in the initial mass functions. Following the interpretation
of Pichon and Denœux, the uncertainty observed in mA∩α B comes from the un-
certainty on the truthfulness of the sources. This uncertainty is expressed on
another frame of discernment Θ and mA∩α B is the marginal of a broader mass
function on Ω × Θ.
Let us now introduce some results on the commonality function qA∩α B and a
canonical conjunctive decomposition of mA∩α B .
Proposition 2. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:

α|X\(A∩B)| if X ⊆ AΔB
qA∩α B (X) = . (5)
0 otherwise
Proof. By definition of commonality function and using proposition 1, one has:

qA∩α B (X) = α|AΔB|−|Y | α|Y |−|A∩B| ,
Y ⊇X
A∩B⊆Y ⊆AΔB

= α|AΔB|−|Y | α|Y |−|A∩B| .
(A∩B)∪X⊆Y ⊆AΔB
2
Mass functions can also be viewed as random set distributions.
6 J. Klein et al.

Observing that no subset Y can satisfy (A ∩ B) ∪ X ⊆ Y ⊆ AΔB unless X ⊆

AΔB accounts for the two separate cases in equation (5) depending on the
condition X ⊆ AΔB. Now if X ⊆ AΔB, one has:
 α |W ∪((A∩B)∪X)|
qA∩α B (X) = α|AΔB| α−|A∩B| /α ,
W ⊆AΔB\((A∩B)∪X)
 α |W |+|(A∩B)∪X|
= α|AΔB| α−|A∩B| /α ,
W ⊆A∪B\X
 α |W |
= α|AΔB|−|(A∩B)∪X| α−|A∩B|+|(A∩B)∪X| /α ,
W ⊆A∪B\X
α |A∪B\X|
= α|A∪B|−|X\(A∩B)| α|X\(A∩B)| /α + 1 ,
|X\(A∩B)|
=α .

Proposition 3. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:

 
∩ α
mA∩ B = mAΔB 
α ∩ mAΔB\{y} . (6)
y∈A∪B

Proof. Proving equation (6) is equivalent to proving that qA∩α B = g with g a

set function such that ∀X ⊆ Ω:

g (X) = qAΔB (X) qAΔB\{y} α (X) .
y∈A∪B

α α
qAΔB\{y} is the commonality function corresponding to mAΔB\{y} :

α 1 if X ⊆ AΔB \ {y}
qAΔB\{y} (X) = .
α otherwise

qAΔB is the commonality function corresponding to mAΔB :


1 if X ⊆ AΔB
qAΔB (X) = .
0 otherwise

If X ⊆ AΔB, then qAΔB (X) = 0 =⇒ g (X) = 0 and consequently, given

proposition 2, qA∩α B and g coincide on these sets.
All other remaining sets X in 2Ω are such that X ⊆ AΔB. Under this assump-
α
tion and given the definition of qAΔB\{y} , one can thus write g (X) = α|C| with
C = y ∈ A ∪ B | X ⊆ AΔB \ {y} ⊂ Ω. It can be proved that C = X \ (A ∩ B)
thereby proving that qA∩α B and g also coincide when X ⊆ AΔB.
 α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions 7

Let us first provide a toy example to better grasp the gist of proposition 3:
Example 1. Suppose that Ω = {a, b, c}, A = {a} and B = {a, b}. Consequently,
we have AΔB = {a, c} and A ∪ B = {c}. The mass functions before combina-
tion, those involved in the conjunctive decomposition in equation (6) as well as
the output mass function mA∩α B are as follows:
subsets: ∅ {a} {b} {a, b} {c} {a, c} {b, c} Ω
mA = m{a} 1
mB = m{a,b} 1
mAΔB = m{a,c} 1
α
mAΔB\{c} = mα{a} α α
mA∩α B α α
Proposition 3 could not have been anticipated by Smets’ work [8] on canonical
decomposition because mA∩α B is dogmatic, i.e. mA∩α B (Ω) = 0. For the same
reason, the decomposition of mA∩α B is not unique in Smet’s sense. Nonetheless,
provided that a restriction from 2Ω to 2AΔB is performed, then uniqueness result
applies. Indeed, the restriction of mA∩α B to 2AΔB is a non-dogmatic mass func-
tion on the frame AΔB and therefore the decomposition is unique. Since there
is no restriction to a greater set than AΔB that remains non-dogmatic, we say
that this decomposition is still canonical by abuse of language. This phenomenon
is also illustrated in example 1 in which mA∩α B happens to be a simple mass
function if defined on 2AΔB .
Following notations and definitions given in [1], we define the conjunctive weight
function of an α-conjunction of two categorical mass functions wA∩α B as follows:
⎧
⎨ 0 if X = AΔB,
∀X ⊆ Ω, wA∩α B (X) = α if X  AΔB and |X| = |AΔB| − 1,
⎩
1 otherwise .

Conjunctive weights are interesting in the sense that they represent the elemen-
tary pieces of evidence that lead to the current state of knowledge. These weights
also induce an information content related partial order for mass functions. They
can also be used to define other combination rules [1,5].
Besides, the proposed conjunctive decomposition allows the following inter-
pretation of α-conjunctions of categorical mass functions: given AΔB, there
are |A ∪ B| sources supporting with strength α respectively that any element
y ∈ A ∪ B may be discarded and all of these sources are truthful.

4 α-Disjunctive Combination of Categorical Mass

Functions
In this section, the dual results of those of section 3 are given for the combination
of categorical mass functions using an α-disjunctive rule. Proofs are not given
because they are obtained by applying the De Morgan laws [10] to results of
8 J. Klein et al.

section 3. The De Morgan laws state that for any mass functions m1 and m2 on
a frame Ω, one has:
α
m1 
∩ α m2 = m1 
∪ m2 , (7)
α
m1 
∪ α m2 = m1 
∩ m2 . (8)

Proposition 4. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:


α|X|−|AΔB| α|A∪B|−|X| if AΔB ⊆ X ⊆ A ∪ B
mA∪α B (X) = . (9)
0 otherwise

Figure 2 illustrates the variety of potential focal sets of mass function mA∪α B .
It can be noted that according to proposition 4:

A ∩ B = ∅ =⇒ mA∪α B = mA∪B . (10)

Fig. 2. Example of focal sets of mass function mA∪α B

Proposition 5. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:


α|(A∪B)\X| if AΔB ⊆ X
bA∪α B (X) = . (11)
0 otherwise

Proposition 6. Let A and B ⊆ Ω. ∀X ⊆ Ω, one has:

 
∪ α
mA∪α B = mAΔB ∪ m(AΔB)∪{y} , (12)
y∈A∩B

with mα
(AΔB)∪{y} denoting a negative simple mass function which is such that
mα(AΔB)∪{y} = αm∅ + αm(AΔB)∪{y} .

Example 2. (Example 1 continued). Suppose that Ω = {a, b, c}, A = {a} and

B = {a, b}. Consequently, we have AΔB = {b} and A ∩ B = {a}. The mass
functions before combination, those involved in the conjunctive decomposition in
equation (12) as well as the output mass function mA∪α B are as follows:
 α-Junctions of Categorical Mass Functions 9

subsets: ∅ {a} {b} {a, b} {c} {a, c} {b, c} Ω

mA = m{a} 1
mB = m{a,b} 1
mAΔB = m{b} 1
mα α
AΔB∪{a} = m{a,b} α α
mA∪α B α α
The existence of the proposed disjunctive decomposition, like in the conjunctive
case, could not have been anticipated using existing theorems. From section 3,
the conjunctive decomposition of mA∩α B is unique in some sense, therefore the
disjunctive decomposition of mA∪α B is unique to the same regard. We say that
it is canonical by abuse of language. In compliance with [1], we define the dis-
junctive weight function of an α-disjunction of two categorical mass functions
vA∪α B as follows:
⎧
⎨ 0 if X = AΔB,
∀X ⊆ Ω, vA∪α B (X) = α if AΔB  X and |X| = |AΔB| + 1,
⎩
1 otherwise .
Besides, the proposed disjunctive decomposition allows the following interpre-
tation of α-disjunctions of categorical mass functions: there are |A ∩ B| sources
supporting AΔB with strength α and AΔB plus any element y ∈ A ∩ B with
strength α and at least one of these sources is truthful.
Furthermore, it can be noted that any combination of categorical mass func-
tions using an α-junction can be decomposed both conjunctively and disjunc-
tively. Indeed, any mass function mA∩α B can be decomposed conjunctively using
proposition 3. Now let C = A ∪ B ∪ X and D = A ∪ B ∪ Y with {X, Y } a par-
tition of A ∩ B. We thus have :
C ∩ D = A ∪ B,
CΔD = A ∩ B,
C ∪ B = AΔB.
Using propositions 1 and 4, it is immediate that mC∪α D = mA∩α B . By using
proposition 6 on mC∪α D , a disjunctive decomposition of mA∩α B is also obtained.

5 Conclusion
In this article, α-junctions of categorical mass functions have been investigated.
We provided straightforward equations for the computation of several set func-
tions pertaining to evidence theory in both the conjunctive and disjunctive cases.
In particular, a canonical conjunctive (respectively disjunctive) decomposition of
the α-conjunction (respectively α-disjunction) of categorical mass functions have
been obtained. In this particular situation, an α-conjunction (respectively an α-
disjunction) is thus a series of purely conjunctive (respectively disjunctive) com-
binations. This leads to new complementary interpretations of α-junctions of de-
terministic pieces of information that are compliant with Pichon and Denœux’s
interpretation [4].
10 J. Klein et al.

Concerning the generalization of these results for the α-junctions of any mass
functions, it can only be concluded that an α-conjunction (respectively an α-
disjunction) is a convex combination of series of purely conjunctive (respectively
disjunctive) combinations. Pichon and Denœux actually already proposed de-
compositions of α-junctions of any mass functions, but these decompositions are
obtained using a cross product of two frames of discernment. In future works,
we hope to provide results on α-junction decompositions on a single frame.
It would be also interesting to investigate the ties between the conjunctive and
disjunctive weights obtained in this article with the α-conjunctive and α-disjunctive
weights introduced in chap. 7 of [5]. These other weights are defined using signed
belief functions and consequently take their values in (−∞, +∞) \ {0}.
Finally, we also hope to apply α-junctions in information fusion problems
involving partially truthful pieces of evidence. Truthfulness issues in information
fusion arise in the presence of an unreliable or malicious information source.
An unreliable source is accidentally untruthful whereas a malicious source is
purposely untruthful (see [2] for an example of a such an application). α-junctions
are appealing combination tools for the latter case. Indeed, if the value of α can
be inferred using contextual information, an α-junction is likely to efficiently
circumvent erroneous pieces of evidence.

References
1. Denoeux, T.: Conjunctive and disjunctive combination of belief functions induced
by non-distinct bodies of evidence. Artificial Intelligence 172(2-3), 234–264 (2008)
2. El Zoghby, N., Cherfaoui, V., Ducourthial, B., Denoeux, T.: Distributed Data
fusion for detecting Sybil attacks in VANETs. In: Denoeux, T., Masson, M.-H.
(eds.) Belief Functions: Theory and Applications. AISC, vol. 164, pp. 351–358.
Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
3. Nguyen, H.T.: On random sets and belief functions. Journal of Mathematical Anal-
ysis and Applications 65(3), 531–542 (1978)
4. Pichon, F., Denoeux, T.: Interpretation and computation of α-junctions for com-
bining belief functions. In: 6th Int. Symposium on Imprecise Probability: Theories
and Applications (ISIPTA 2009), Durham, U.K. (2009)
5. Pichon, F.: Belief functions: canonical decompositions and combination rules.
Ph.D. thesis, Université de Technologie de Compiègne – UTC (march (2009)
6. Pichon, F.: On the α-conjunctions for combining belief functions. In: Denoeux, T.,
Masson, M.H. (eds.) Belief Functions: Theory and Applications. AISC, vol. 164,
pp. 285–292. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
7. Pichon, F., Dubois, D., Denoeux, T.: Relevance and truthfulness in information
correction and fusion. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 53(2),
159–175 (2012); Theory of Belief Functions (BELIEF 2010)
8. Smets, P.: The canonical decomposition of weighted belief. In: Int. Joint. Conf. on
Artificial Intelligence. pp. 1896–1901 (1995)
9. Smets, P.: The alpha-junctions: Combination operators applicable to belief func-
tions. In: Nonnengart, A., Kruse, R., Ohlbach, H.J., Gabbay, D.M. (eds.) FAPR
1997 and ECSQARU 1997. LNCS, vol. 1244, pp. 131–153. Springer, Heidelberg
(1997)
10. Smets, P.: The application of the matrix calculus to belief functions. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 31(1-2), 1–30 (2002)
 Truthfulness in Contextual Information
Correction

Frédéric Pichon, David Mercier, François Delmotte, and Éric Lefèvre

Univ. Lille Nord de France, F-59000 Lille, France

UArtois, LGI2A, F-62400 Béthune, France
{frederic.pichon,david.mercier,
francois.delmotte,eric.lefevre}@univ-artois.fr

Abstract. Recently, a dual reinforcement process to contextual dis-

counting was introduced. However, it lacked a clear interpretation. In
this paper, we propose a new perspective on contextual discounting: it
can be seen as successive corrections corresponding to simple contextual
lies. Most interestingly, a similar interpretation is provided for the re-
inforcement process. Two new contextual correction mechanisms, which
are similar yet complementary to the two existing ones, are also intro-
duced.

Keywords: Dempster-Shafer theory, Belief functions, Information cor-

rection, Discounting.

1 Introduction
Information correction has received quite a lot of attention in recent years in
belief function theory (see, e.g., [9,11]). It is an important question that deals
with how an agent should interpret a piece of information received from a source
about a parameter x defined on a finite domain X = {x1 , . . . , xK }. Classically,
the agent has some knowledge regarding the reliability of the source and, using
the discounting operation [12], he is able to take into account that knowledge
and to modify, or correct, the initial piece of information accordingly.
Since its inception, the discounting operation has been extended in differ-
ent ways. Notably, Mercier et al. [10,9] consider the case where one has some
knowledge about the reliability of the source, conditionally on different subsets
(contexts) A of X , leading to the so-called contextual discounting operation. One
may also refine the discounting operation in order to take into account knowledge
about the source truthfulness [11]. Of particular interest for the present work
is the dual reinforcement operation to contextual discounting introduced in [9].
Mercier et al. [9] show that this correction mechanism amounts to the negation
[6] of the contextual discounting of the negation of the initial information, but
unfortunately they do not go further in providing a clear interpretation for this
interesting operation.
In this paper, we study further contextual correction mechanisms. We present
(Section 3) a new framework for handling detailed meta-knowledge about source

F. Cuzzolin (Ed.): BELIEF 2014, LNAI 8764, pp. 11–20, 2014.


c Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
12 F. Pichon et al.

truthfulness. Using this framework, we then derive the contextual discounting

operation (Section 4.1) and its dual (Section 4.2), leading to a new perspective on
the former and an interpretation for the latter. We proceed (Section 4.3) with the
introduction of two new contextual correction mechanisms, whose interpretations
are similar yet complementary to the two existing ones. Background material on
belief function theory is first recalled in Section 2.

2 Belief Function Theory: Necessary Notions

In this section, we first recall basic concepts of belief function theory. Then, we
present existing correction mechanisms that are of interest for this paper.

2.1 Basic Concepts

In this paper, we adopt Smets’ Transferable Belief Model (TBM) [14], where the
beliefs held by an agent Ag regarding the actual value taken by x are modeled
using a belief function [12] and represented using an associated mass function.
X
 mass function (MF) on X is defined as a mapping m : 2 → [0, 1] verifying
A
A⊆X m (A) = 1. Subsets A of X such that m(A) > 0 are called focal sets of
m. A MF having focal sets X and A ⊂ X , with respective masses w and 1 − w,
w ∈ [0, 1], may be denoted by Aw . A MF having focal sets ∅ and A = ∅, with
respective masses v and 1 − v, v ∈ [0, 1], may be denoted by Av . The negation
m of a MF m is defined as m(A) = m(A), ∀A ⊆ X , where A denotes the
complement of A [6].
Beliefs can be aggregated using so-called combination rules. In particular,
the conjunctive rule, which is the unnormalized version of Dempster’s rule [5], is
defined as follows. Let m1 and m2 be two MFs, and let m1 ∩ 2 be the MF resulting
from their combination by the conjunctive rule denoted by  ∩ . We have:


m1∩ 2 (A) = m1 (B) m2 (C) , ∀A ⊆ X . (1)
B∩C=A

Other combination rules of interest for this paper are the disjunctive rule

∪ [6], the exclusive disjunctive rule 
∪ and the equivalence rule 
∩ [13]. Their

definitions are similar to that of the conjunctive rule: one merely needs to replace
∩ in (1) by, respectively, ∪, ∪ and ∩, where ∪   OR) and ∩ (logical
 (exclusive
equality) are defined respectively by B∪C = B ∩ C ∪ B ∩ C and B∩C =
(B ∩ C) ∪ (B ∩ C) for all B, C ⊆ X . The interpretations of these four rules are
discussed in detail in [11].

2.2 Correction Mechanisms

Knowledge about a source reliability is classically taken into account in the

TBM through the discounting operation. Suppose a source S providing a piece
 Truthfulness in Contextual Information Correction 13

of information represented by a MF mS . Let β, with β ∈ [0, 1], be Ag’s degree

of belief that the source is reliable. Ag’s belief m on X is then defined by [12]:

m(X ) = β mS (X ) + (1 − β), m(A) = β mS (A), ∀A ⊂ X . (2)

Mercier et al. [9] consider the case where Ag has some knowledge about the
source reliability, conditionally on different subsets A of X . Precisely, let βA , with
βA ∈ [0, 1], be Ag’s degree of belief that the source is reliable in context A ⊆ X
and let A be the set of contexts for which Ag possesses such contextual meta-
knowledge. Ag’s belief m on X is then defined by the following equation known
as contextual discounting that subsumes discounting (recovered for A = {X }):

m = mS 
∪ A∈A AβA . (3)

In addition, a dual reinforcement process to contextual discounting, called

contextual reinforcement hereafter, is introduced in [9]. Let mS be a MF provided
by a source S. The contextual reinforcement of mS is the MF m defined by:

m = mS 
∩ A∈A AβA , (4)

with βA ∈ [0, 1], A ∈ A. Mercier et al. [9] show that this correction amounts to
the negation of the contextual discounting of the negation of mS . However, they
do not go further in providing a clear explanation as to what meta-knowledge
on the source this correction of mS corresponds. One of the main results of this
paper is to provide such an interpretation.

3 A Refined Model of Source Truthfulness

In the correction schemes recalled in Section 2.2, the reliability of a source is
assimilated to its relevance as explained in [11]. In [11], Pichon et al. assume that
the reliability of a source involves in addition another dimension: its truthfulness.
Pichon et al. [11] note that there exists various forms of lack of truthfulness for
a source. For instance, for a sensor, it may take the form of a systematic bias.
However, Pichon et al. [11] study only the crudest description of the lack of
truthfulness, where a non truthful source is a source that declares the contrary
of what it knows. According to this definition, from a piece of information of
the form x ∈ B for some B ⊆ X provided by a relevant source S, one must
conclude that x ∈ B or x ∈ B, depending on whether the source S is assumed
to be truthful or not.
In this section, we propose a new and refined model of source truthfulness
that allows the integration of more detailed meta-knowledge about the lack of
truthfulness of an information source.

3.1 Elementary Truthfulness

Assume that a relevant source provides a piece of information on the value taken
by x of the form x ∈ B, for some B ⊆ X . Let us now consider a particular value
14 F. Pichon et al.

x ∈ X . Either x ∈ B or x ∈ B, that is, the source may tell that x is possibly the
actual value of x or it may tell that x is not a possibility for the actual value of
x. Furthermore, for each of those two possible declarations by the source about
the value x, one may have some knowledge on whether the source is truthful or
not. For instance, one may believe that the source is truthful when it tells that
x is a possibility – in which case one must conclude that x is possibly the actual
value of x if the source does tell that x is a possibility for x – and that it lies
when it tells that x is not a possibility – in which case one must conclude that x
is possibly the actual value of x if the source does tell that x is not a possibility
for x.
To account for such detailed knowledge about the behavior of the source, let us
introduce two binary variables px and nx , with respective frames Px = {px , ¬px }
and Nx = {nx , ¬nx }: px (resp. ¬px ) corresponds to the state where the source
is truthful (resp. not truthful) when it tells that x is possibly the actual value
for x; nx (resp. ¬nx ) corresponds to the state where the source is truthful (resp.
not truthful) when it tells that x is not a possibility for the actual value of x.
Now, we can define a variable tx with associated frame Tx = Px × Nx ,
which contains four states tx = (px , nx ), ¬tnx = (px , ¬nx ), ¬tpx = (¬px , nx )
and ¬tx = (¬px , ¬nx ) allowing us to model the global truthfulness of the source
with respect to the value x: tx corresponds to the case where the source tells
the truth whatever it says about the value x, in short the source is said to be
truthful for x; ¬tnx corresponds to the case of a source that lies only when it
tells that x is not a possibility for x, which will be called a negative liar for x;
¬tpx corresponds to the case of a source that lies only when it says that x is a
possibility for x, which will be called a positive liar for x; ¬tx corresponds to
the case where the source lies whatever it says about the value x, in short the
source is said to be non truthful for x.
There are thus four possible cases:

1. Suppose the source tells x is possibly the actual value of x, i.e., the infor-
mation x ∈ B provided by the source is such that x ∈ B.

(a) If the source is assumed to be truthful (tx ) or a negative liar (¬tnx ), then
one must conclude that x is possibly the actual value of x;
(b) If the source is assumed to be a positive liar (¬tpx ) or non truthful (¬tx ),
then one must conclude that x is not a possibility for the actual value of
x;

2. Suppose the source tells x is not a possibility for the actual value of x, i.e.,
x ∈ B.

(a) If the source is assumed to be in state tx or in state ¬tpx , then one must
conclude that x is not a possibility for the actual value of x;
(b) If the source is assumed to be in state ¬tnx or in state ¬tx , then one must
conclude that x is possibly the actual value of x;
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Old Joe Crowfoot seemed either not to hear or to be too enraged to
heed. Like a mountain-goat, he raced upward over the rocks and
hastened straight toward the boy. But, what was strangest of all, the
boy made no effort to escape, nor did he seem at all frightened.
Instead, he seemed to stand and await the approach of the Indian.
Frank and Bart were surprised by this, but they were still more
surprised by what followed. The Indian reached the boy and quickly
clutched him. Then, with a swift swing, the strange old redskin swept
the lad round behind him and up to his back. The arms of the boy
immediately clasped about the Indian’s neck, while his legs twined
round the old fellow’s body, and there he hung pickapack fashion.
Scarcely had Old Joe Crowfoot paused in his upward race. When
Frank and Bart had confronted him at the mouth of the valley both
had fancied him old and rather feeble, but now he seemed to have
the strength of a youth and the agility of a mountain-goat. Having
swung the boy to his back, he continued to clamber upward over the
rocks as if quite unimpeded by his burden.
“Well,” gasped Hodge, “if that doesn’t beat the old boy himself!”
Merry was no less amazed. To both it had seemed that the old Indian
meditated doing the boy harm as he clambered toward him, but the
youngster had betrayed no fear, although his hand flung the missile
that destroyed Old Joe’s aim and saved Frank Merriwell’s life.
“He’s running off with the boy!” palpitated Bart.
“And the boy is perfectly willing,” said Merry.
“But the kid threw the stone at the old duffer.”
“For which I am very thankful, as it is certain the old duffer meant to
perforate me.”
Then they sat there on their horses and watched till the old Indian
and his remarkable burden disappeared amid the rocks. Just before
vanishing from view, Old Joe Crowfoot paused, turned and looked
down on the boys. Then he made a gesture that seemed to be one
of warning. The boy, still clinging to the back of his peculiar
companion, took off his wide hat and waved it gaily. A moment later
they were gone.
Frank and Bart sat there, staring upward and remaining silent for
some moments. At last Merriwell said:
“Well, that little affair is over. Let’s move along and see what will
happen next.”
“I don’t understand it,” muttered Hodge, in disappointed perplexity.
“Nor do I,” confessed Frank cheerfully.
“It’s strange.”
“Mighty strange.”
“A white boy and an Indian.”
“Companions beyond a doubt.”
“Yet the boy threw a stone at the Indian.”
“I believe he threw the stone to hit the Indian’s rifle, a feat he
accomplished. I do not think he intended to hit the Indian. Anyhow, I
owe him my life, and I am grateful.”
For a few minutes longer they remained there, discussing what had
happened, and then Merry again led the way into the valley. As they
advanced it slowly broadened before them. The valley was eight or
ten miles in length, and a stream ran through it, disappearing into a
narrow gorge. Near the head of the valley was a pretty little lake,
with timber about it. In the valley were to be seen a few grazing
cattle, yet from their position the boys could see no ranch-house.
“But I’m certain somebody lives here,” said Frank. “The sight of the
cattle convinces me of that.”
They soon found that it was no easy matter to ride down into the
valley from that point, but they discovered a dimly defined trail, which
they ventured to follow. Fortunately the hardy little mustangs were
steady and sure of foot, for there were points where it seemed that
no horse could go down without falling.
The little beasts squatted on their haunches more than once and
literally slid along till they could recover themselves.
Bart had his teeth set, and no word came from his lips, as he was
ready and determined to follow wherever Merriwell led. No accident
happened, and the level of the valley was reached. Then they
headed toward the lake at the upper end.
The sun was dropping behind the western peaks when they entered
a strip of timber that lay across their path in the vicinity of the lake.
The cattle they had passed gave them little notice, convincing them
that they were accustomed to the presence and sight of mounted
riders. The timber was open, yet they were unable to ride through it
at a swift pace, as they had not entered on a regular trail. When they
had proceeded a considerable distance they came at last upon a
path. In the deepening gloom it was not easy to make out if it was a
horse-trail or a foot-path.
As they reached this path, Frank suddenly pulled up, uttering a soft
word of warning.
“Stop, Hodge!” he said. “I thought I heard something.”
Bart stopped promptly, and they sat there, motionless and listening.
At first they heard no sound save the breathing of their mounts. Bart
was about to speak, when Merry lifted his hand.
Straining their ears, they distinctly made out the sound of swift
footsteps, which were approaching. Hodge gripped the butt of a
revolver and drew it from its holster. A moment later the silence of
the gloomy timber was broken by a sound that sent the blood leaping
to their hearts.
“Help! Oh, oh—help!”
It was the cry of a child in great fear and distress.
 CHAPTER X.
THE KIDNAPED GIRL.

“Choke off the kid, Bill! Are you crazy, to let her screech like that?”
The command came quick and sharp and suppressed.
“Hanged ef I like this yar business of chokin’ babbys! I wouldn’t mind
ef she wuz a man.”
The retort was growled forth in a gruff bass voice. Two dark forms
were seen coming along the path. One of them, the one in advance,
carried in his arms a little girl of twelve.
The ruffians did not observe Frank and Bart until they were quite
close. Then, of a sudden, as the big fellow in advance halted,
uttering a startled oath, Merriwell’s clear voice rang out:
“Drop that child, you whelps, or we’ll drop you.”
The man behind made a quick movement, and Frank flung himself
from the saddle. It was well Merry did so, for the man had whipped
out a revolver and fired over the shoulder of his companion, the
bullet whistling past Frank’s ear as he dropped.
“Got him!” grated the man, evidently believing he had shot the youth.
“Down goes the other one!”
Bart had a revolver in his grasp, but, in the gloom of the timber, he
had refrained from firing, fearing to injure the girl, who now uttered
another cry for help.
But Hodge knew he was in danger, and he feared Frank had been hit
by the shot of the ruffian. He ducked beside the neck of his horse
and was barely in time to save his life, for another flash of fire
punctured the shadows, another report rang through the timber, and
the second bullet cut a hole through the hat of the dark-faced youth.
Then Hodge saw Merriwell leaping straight at the ruffian in advance,
and he knew Frank was not seriously hurt. With a shout of relief and
satisfaction, Bart sprang to the ground and jumped after Frank.
“Give it to the dogs, Merry!” he exclaimed.
Merriwell was on the big ruffian in a moment. The man had swung
the child under his arms, and he brought forth a revolver as Frank
came up.
The young athlete ducked and struck out, and the revolver was sent
spinning from the grasp of the wretch, being discharged as it flew
through the air.
Then Merry was on the scoundrel and the ruffian was forced to drop
the child and meet the attack of the fearless youth.
Hodge went past like a leaping panther, but the other man had
darted behind a tree and melted away amid the underbrush in a
most surprising manner, and while Bart slashed about in search of
the fellow who had disappeared, Merriwell fought the other, who was
a gigantic man of remarkable strength.
The child had crept away a short distance, where it crouched on the
ground, watching the battle in fascination and fear.
“Dern yer!” growled the ruffian. “Whatever do ye mean by botherin’
two peaceable gents in this yar way?”
“We mean business,” answered Frank.
“Waal, danged ef I don’t cut yer inter ribbons!” declared the giant, as
he made a movement and wrenched forth a knife.
Frank moved swiftly, and was barely in time to fasten his fingers on
the wrist of the murderous wretch.
“No, you don’t!” he exclaimed. “I object to anything of the sort!”
“Object and be dished!” came from the other. “Why, do you think yer
kin hold that yar hand? Ye’re nothin’ but a kid!”
Then the ruffian made a furious, wrenching twist to get his hand free,
but, to his surprise, the grip of the beardless youth was like steel,
and he failed utterly in his attempt.
This was the fellow’s first surprise; others followed swiftly.
“What’s this?” he howled, in fury. “Dang my hoofs! kin you hang on
that way?”
“You’ll find I’m something of a sticker,” laughed Frank.
Now, the other did not know that when Frank Merriwell laughed in
that peculiar manner he was the most dangerous, and he fancied the
youth thought the affair not at all serious.
“I’ll git him in a minute,” the ruffian mentally decided, “an’ I’ll give him
the length of this yar toad-sticker, which’ll convince him that this is a
mighty sad world, I reckon.”
But though he made another furious attempt to get his hand free, the
fingers of the youth were like riveted bands. Then the ruffian grew
still more angry.
“Double dern yer!” he panted. “You kin hang on, so I reckon I’ll just
have ter break yer back!”
Then he tried to fling Frank to the ground, but Merry used a
wrestling-trip, and the man went down instead. In the fall the grip of
the youth was almost broken, and, with a snarl of satisfaction, the
ruffian twisted his wrist free.
Then he swung back his hand to drive that terrible knife to the hilt
between Merry’s ribs. But Frank knew his danger, and, like a flash,
he had the thick, hairy wrist again in his clutch.
The man swore and tried to fling his youthful antagonist off, but he
found he could not do so and retain his hold on the knife. Then he
relinquished the knife and put every effort into the struggle to hurl
Merry aside.
The little girl, on her knees by the foot of a great tree, watched this
fearful battle with distended eyes.
Bart Hodge was still beating about for the man who had so cleverly
vanished in the gloom. There was a sudden report, as fire belched
from a tangled thicket, and a bullet grazed Bart’s cheek.
Hodge dropped, knowing now the other man had sought shelter, and
waited till he felt that he could bring one of the youths down with a
sure shot. Evidently the man believed he had succeeded, for he rose
to his feet, so that Bart obtained a glimpse of him.
In his impatient rage, Hodge did not wait for the fellow to advance,
but he took a quick aim and fired immediately. Down went the man.
“Soaked him!” said Bart grimly. “He brought it on himself.”
Then he lifted himself to his feet. It was Bart’s turn to meet with
surprise, for again from the thicket came a flash of fire, and this time
Hodge felt something burn and sting in his shoulder.
With a shout of fury, Hodge leaped straight toward the thicket, into
which he fearlessly plunged, reckless of his life.
But when he reached the spot where he believed the enemy must
be, he found no one there. The desperado had slipped away as
Hodge came leaping toward the spot, being aided to escape by the
deepening darkness.
Finding the man was not there, the conviction came on Hodge that
he was crouching near, waiting to obtain another shot, which he
would take care to make sure. Then the instinct of self-preservation
overcame Bart’s great fury, and he crouched close to the ground,
holding his revolver ready, while he peered about in the gloom and
listened.
Not far away the battle between Frank and the giant ruffian was still
raging fiercely.
With every sense on the alert, Bart squatted there, ready to shoot or
spring. His nerves were tingling, but he did his best to be steady and
cool. An encounter of this sort, however, was something to unsteady
the nerves of almost any man, and it was not at all strange that Bart
found himself shaking somewhat as he remained motionless and
waiting.
The breathing of the floundering giant who was trying to conquer
Merriwell sounded hoarsely through the gloom, and there was
something awesome in it. Suddenly the sounds stopped. The
struggle seemed to be ended. Who had conquered?
At the risk of betraying his position to the man who might be waiting
to shoot at him, Bart ventured to call:
“Merriwell!”
Hodge’s heart gave a leap of joy when Frank’s voice answered:
“Here! Are you all right?”
“Sure thing! And you?”
“Well, I’ve succeeded in quieting this chap, though he did put up an
awful fight.”
“Look out for the other!”
“Then he is——”
“He’s around here somewhere. I popped at him two or three times,
but I didn’t bag him.”
Crouching low, Bart moved as quietly as he could toward Frank, still
ready to shoot instantly. But in the gloom no pistol flashed, and no
deadly bullet sang through the timber.
Bart found Merriwell with his arm about the frightened child, while
near-by, on the ground, lay the body of the giant, sprawling
grotesquely.
“Have you killed him?” asked Hodge, looking down at the silent
ruffian.
“I’m afraid so,” said Frank.
“Afraid?” exclaimed the dark-faced youth.
“Yes.”
“Why afraid?”
“I have no desire to kill anybody.”
“But this murderous dog——”
“Not even a human being of his caliber.”
“Well,” said Hodge grimly, “I did my level best to bore the other cur,
and my conscience would not have troubled me had I succeeded.
How did you do this one?”
“He had wonderful strength and wind, and he thrashed round to beat
the band. I was forced to be at my best all the time, and I hurled him
back repeatedly after he had partly succeeded in rising with me. The
last time I did so his head struck against the exposed root of that
tree, and it doubled under him with a snap like a pistol-shot. Then he
was limp as a rag, and the fight was over, so far as he was
concerned.”
Bart caught the ruffian by the shoulders and partly lifted him. Then
he let the fellow drop back, a slight shiver running over him.
“Neck broken!” he said shortly.
“Broken!” exclaimed Frank. “As bad as that?”
“Sure thing!” said Hodge. “He won’t try to kidnap any more children,
for I reckon that was what they were doing with this one.”
Frank turned his attention to the child once more, while Bart looked
after the tired mustangs. As he approached the animals, a figure
suddenly sprang out of the gloom and onto the back of one of them.
There was a yell, and away dashed the animal along the path,
bearing the ruffian who had escaped.
Hodge took a shot at the fellow, and then, finding the man still clung
to the mustang, having disappeared in the gloom, he fired again in
the direction of the sound. Still the mustang fled on with its burden,
and Bart muttered an exclamation of rage.
The other animal had been alarmed by this, and Bart found some
trouble in approaching the creature, though he finally succeeded in
capturing him.
“Well, Merriwell,” he said, as he returned, leading the single mount,
“we’ve lost one of our beasts.”
Frank had been trying to allay the fears of the trembling child, and he
simply made a gesture for Bart to be quiet, which was seen and
understood, for all of the fast-deepening shadows.
“We will not harm you,” Merry was saying, in a soft, gentle way. “You
need have no further fear. What is your name?”
“Felicia,” was the low answer. “But Old Joe calls me Star Eyes.”
“Felicia—what a pretty name!” said Frank. “And these bad men were
carrying you off?”
“Yes. Please take me home.”
“We’ll do that, little Felicia. Your home is here, in the valley?”
“Yes, sir. It’s in the Black Woods, by Lake Sunshine.”
“Lake Sunshine? Another pretty name! What do you call the valley?”
“Pleasant Valley.”
“And that is a pretty name, too.”
“My mama named the lake, and the valley, and the woods. But now
she’s gone.”
“Gone?”
“Yes, and papa says she’s gone to a beautifuler world than this,
though it doesn’t seem to me it can be true, and I know just where
papa put her in the ground when she died. I was there putting
flowers on her grave, and the grave of the Good Stranger, when
those bad men grabbed me and carried me away.”
Frank felt a queer thrill.
“The Good Stranger?” he said. “Who was that?”
“Oh, I loved him, and Dick loved him, and we all loved him, for he
was so kind. But the fever took him, and he died, too. He is buried
near my mama.”
“What was his name?”
“I don’t know. Old Joe called him White Beard, but I just called him
uncle.”
“How long ago was it that he died?”
“More than a week, now. Papa buried him, too.”
Bart’s hand fell on the shoulder of Frank, who was kneeling, with one
arm about the little girl. That touch told that Hodge was beginning to
realize just what Merry’s questions were leading to, which filled him
with eagerness.
“What is your papa’s name?” asked Merry, and then held his breath
as he waited for the answer.
“I just call him papa,” said the child. “Please take me to him. He will
be so sorry when he finds I’m not at home.”
“In a moment we’ll take you to him. You call him papa, but what do
others call him?”
“Nobody ever comes here much, except Old Joe, and he calls my
papa Silent Tongue.”
“Who is Old Joe?”
“A good Indian.”
Merry started a bit, and then quickly asked:
“Do you mean Old Joe Crowfoot?”
“Papa calls him Crowfoot sometimes. Please take me to my papa.”
“The scent grows hot!” muttered Hodge.
“And did you never hear your father called anything but Silent
Tongue? What did your mother call him?”
“Most times she called him dearest, but sometimes she called him
——”
“Yes, yes—she called him what?”
“Juan.”
“I knew it!” broke from Hodge. “We’re on the right trail, Merry!”
“At last!” exclaimed Frank, in deep satisfaction. “Little Felicia, we’ll
take you to your father without delay.”
 CHAPTER XI.
JUAN DELORES.

They left the big ruffian lying there in the darkness of the timber.
Little Felicia was placed on the back of the mustang, beside which
Frank walked, while Bart led the way along the path.
Having passed from the dark timber, they came out near the pretty
little lake, which was reflecting the golden glory of the lingering
sunset, flung up against the mountain-bordered sky. The crimson
and amber and purple were fading from the heavens as the somber
wing of night spread over the world.
“There are the Black Woods,” said the little girl, as she indicated a
thick mass of trees near the head of the valley. “My home is in
there.”
By the dying light Frank made out that she was very pretty, with dark
hair and eyes. She had a sweet voice.
“Felicia,” he thought, as they made their way toward the woods. “The
name seems to fit her. It seems strange to find such a child here.”
Merry was restraining the impatience that beset him, for now he felt
that he was near the end of his long search. He had no doubt that
the Good Stranger spoken of by the child was his father, who had
died there in that wild but beautiful spot—died as he had lived,
strangely.
There was a mystery to be unfolded, and Frank was determined to
clear it up, if possible.
“Up there,” said Felicia, with a gesture, “is the place where my mama
and the Good Stranger are buried.”
Frank was near the grave of his father, he believed. It was too late to
visit it then; besides, Merry felt that it was his duty to take the child
home without delay. Felicia had explained that her father was away
at the time when the men came upon her and carried her away,
having left some hours before, saying he would return ere nightfall,
and warning her to stay close to her cabin home.
As they approached the Black Woods they could discern the dark
opening where the trail entered. There the track was plain beneath
their feet. But when they were yet a little distance from the woods a
stern voice cried from the darkness of the shadows:
“Halt, dere!”
Bart stopped, his hand flying to the butt of his revolver. His rifle,
swinging from the saddle of his mustang, had been lost when the
escaping ruffian rode madly away on the beast.
“Don’t try to draw da gun!” came the voice from the woods. “Shoot
mighty quick if you do! Up with da hands!”
“It’s papa!” exclaimed little Felicia. “Papa! papa!”
Bart shrugged his shoulders and lifted his hands.
“T’other one put up da hands,” came the voice.
“We are friends,” declared Frank quietly. “We have just saved your
child from the hands of ruffians.”
“Put up da hands!” ordered the voice, and there was a clicking that
seemed to tell of a rifle being cocked. “I’ll shoot if you don’t!”
Merry stood up boldly, facing the point from which the voice came,
fearlessly saying:
“If you shoot, you will fire on those who have saved your child, which
will prove you a dastard. I refuse to be held up road-agent style, and
shall not lift my hands. Fire if you will!”
Silence for a moment, and then, quick as thought, the child leaned
over and put her arms about Merry’s neck, crying:
“Don’t, papa—don’t! He beat the big, bad man who was carrying me
away!”
Another silence, and then the voice called:
“Felicia!”
“Papa!”
“Get off dat horse and come here quick-a!”
She seemed to hesitate, and then she tightened her arms about
Frank’s neck, murmuring in his ear:
“Don’t be afraid. I’ll not let my papa hurt you.”
A second later she had slipped to the ground and was running
toward the dark woods, into which she disappeared.
Frank and Bart stood waiting what was to follow. The sound of
murmuring voices came from amid the grim old trees, and the child
was heard relating to her father the story of her thrilling and exciting
adventures. But it seemed that the man meditated upon the proper
course to pursue, for she was forced to plead with him in behalf of
Frank and Bart.
“They are good, papa—I know they are,” they heard her declare.
“The one who fought so hard for me with the great, big, bad man is
just as kind and gentle.”
After a time the man came forth from the darkness, leading the child
by the hand, while he carried his rifle in his other hand. He seemed
to be keenly on the alert, as if he did not trust the strangers, for all of
the words of his child.
“I have to t’ank you,” he said, with an accent, “for what you have
done. My little Felicia, she tell me. She is all I have left now. When I
come on my way home and hear da shooting, my heart it jump like a
frog into my mouth-a. I run home quick as I can, and call, call, call for
her. She do not answer. Den I t’ink somet’ing have happen to her,
and I start to run dis way fast. When I come here to da edge of da
woods I see you coming dis way, and I stop. You bring my little
Felicia back-a to me, and I t’ank you.”
The child seemed to look at her father in surprise, as if she were not
accustomed to hearing him speak thus freely.
“We are happy to be of service to you and little Felicia, Mr. Delores,”
said Merry quietly.
The man was seen to start a bit, while he gripped his rifle still harder.
“You know my name?” he said, a bit harshly.
“Yes.”
“How?”
“We have come far to find you.”
This seemed to put him more than ever on his guard.
“What do you want?”
“The story is rather long,” said Merry. “There is no chance for us to
get out of this valley to-night. Take us to your home and I will tell you
everything. I do not think you will regret it.”
“Why should I do dat? You are strangers.”
“That is true, but you knew Charles Merriwell.”
Frank looked straight and hard at the man as he uttered the words,
but, to his surprise, the father of little Felicia did not betray emotion
of any sort—or the darkness hid his betrayal.
“Charles Merriwell?” he said. “Who you mean?”
“The Good Stranger, who lies buried over yonder.”
“What you know ’bout him?”
“He was my father.”
Little Felicia gave a cry, but the man simply said:
“How you prove dat?”
“I can prove it. I am Frank Merriwell, well known in New Haven,
where I have been at college. This is my friend Bart Hodge, who will
tell you whatever you wish to know about me.”
“But I know not’ing of him. Dat be no proof. Have you de word?”
“The word?”
“Dat’s what I ask.”
Frank was forced to confess that he did not know what Juan Delores
meant by “the word.”
“Den you be not Frank Merriwell!” positively declared the man.
“I do not know what you mean by ‘the word.’” Merry said, “but I
assure you that you are wrong about me not being Frank Merriwell.”
“He would come with da word.”
“Then you have been expecting him?”
“I no say so.”
“But you have the same as said so. There has been a failure of the
plans, Mr. Delores, and that is why I do not come with the word you
expect. I will explain everything to you if you will give me a chance.”
“Why should I trust-a you?”
“Your daughter, safe at your side, answers that question.”
“Follow me,” said Juan Delores, turning about.
Frank had won, and he followed, Bart striding along at his side,
saying nothing, but thinking a great deal. They entered the Black
Woods by the dark trail, which it was now difficult to follow,
proceeding till they came to a cabin in the very midst of the growth.
No light gleamed from the cabin, but Delores said:
“Dis my home. Felicia, you take da stranger in da house and make
da light. I take da horse. I come prit’ quick.”
Frank surrendered the mustang to the man, and then they followed
little Felicia into the cabin, wondering why the home had been built in
the midst of that gloomy growth of trees.
The child found matches and lighted an oil-lamp which stood on a
table in the living-room—the room they had entered. The light
showed them a comfortably, even tastily, furnished room, much to
their surprise. It was small, but the walls were tinted blue, the floor
carpeted, and the furniture was good. There were handsome
paintings on the walls, while at the two windows were lace curtains.
A handsome piano stood in one corner of the room, opposite an
open fireplace of stone.
Both Bart and Frank were surprised, and they exchanged glances
which told each other their feelings.
By the light of the lamp, Merry saw that little Felicia was pretty,
indeed, with a dark, oval face, and snowy white teeth.
“Let me take your hats,” she said, smiling at them. “Sit down. Papa
will be right in.”
They sat down, and Merry, finding a guitar, soon occupied himself.
Having tightened the strings and put the instrument in tune, he
strummed lightly upon it, singing a soft little song to the girl, who
came and stood near, her hands clasped, looking at him earnestly.
While Merry was singing, Juan Delores came to the door and
paused a moment. He looked in and beheld the spectacle. It
reassured him and banished his fears. When he came in he closed
and bolted the door.
“I see you make yorse’f at home,” he said. “Good!”
He was a man with a Spanish face and deep, dark eyes. His face
was not exactly handsome, and yet about it there was something
fascinating. He had a mustache and imperial, which had once been
coal-black, but were now heavily mixed with gray.
Delores had studied Merriwell’s face as he stood outside the door,
and what he saw seemed to restore his confidence. Surely, this
frank-appearing youth who was singing to Felicia could not be very
bad.
But, when he looked at Bart, Delores was not so sure, for the face of
Hodge was not one so easily read.
Felicia clapped her hands.
“Oh, that’s a fine song!” she cried.
“You like music, do you?”
“Oh, yes, I do! I can sing.”
“I shall be delighted to hear you sing.”
“Mama taught me,” said the little girl soberly. “She used to sing such
sweet songs.”
Juan Delores had very little to say, though he lingered a while and
listened to their talk. At last he said:
“I see you all right, young gentlemen. I go get da supper. Mebbe you
be hungry?”
“Well,” smiled Frank, “to confess the truth, I am ravenous.”
“And I’m rather empty myself,” acknowledged Bart dryly.
“I have not much fine food,” said Delores; “but I t’ink I have somet’ing
to fill you on.”
“That’s what we’re looking for, Mr. Delores,” said Merry. “You’ll not be
troubled by our fastidiousness.”
“Can I help you, papa?” asked little Felicia.
“No; you stay and make da gentlemen company.”
Then, having stood quite still and looked at Merry, the queer man
suddenly held out his hand, exclaiming:
“I t’ank you, sir, for save my little girl. I love her. She is all I have left
since her mother go ’way forever.”
Frank was touched.
“Don’t mention it, Delores,” he said, as he took the offered hand.
“Her cry of distress appealed to me, and I was ready to fight to the
death for her.”
“I know da men who were carryin’ her off,” said Felicia’s father, his
eyes flashing. “Da come here an’ make da threat when da no find
what da want. I go to look for dem, but I did not t’ink da get dis side
of me. I t’ink my Felicia be safe.”
Then he stooped and put his arms lovingly about the little girl, whom
he kissed with great tenderness.
“You knew the men?” said Merry. “What did they want?”
“Somet’ing da never get,” answered Delores. “Da big one be
Gunnison Bill, da worst dog in da State!”
“That’s the one I had the fight with,” nodded Merry.
“With him? Why, he much bigger dan you!”
“Somewhat.”
“How you fight him?”
“Hand to hand. He pulled a knife on me, but I got him by the wrist
and forced him to drop it.”
Delores seemed unable to believe this.
“Why, you very young!” he said. “You almost boy. Gunnison Bill, he is
giant.”
“Mr. Merriwell is an athlete,” put in Hodge. “He is the champion all-
round athlete of Yale—or was.”
“Mr. Merriwell!” said Delores, again looking searchingly at Frank.
“Why you call him dat?”
“Because it is his name, even though you, for some unknown
reason, seem to think contrary.”
Juan Delores shook his head.
“It is very queer,” he said. “If he be Frank Merriwell, he should bring
da word.”
“I think I know what you mean by that,” said Merry. “‘The word’ is
something my father told you I would be able to give when I
appeared. I will explain after supper why I am unable to give the
word. I believe I can satisfy you, sir.”
“I hope you do dat; but never till you give da word am I to do it.”
“Do what?”
“Dat I shall not tell.”
“It is plain that you are bound not to betray your trust, Mr. Delores,
whatever it is. I admire you because you are faithful.”
“An’ I admire you because you whip da Gunnison Bill. How you do it
I cannot guess.”
“Oh, papa, he did fight so hard, and I was so afraid!” exclaimed
Felicia. “Once I thought sure the bad man would kill him right before
me, but I prayed to the Lord.”
“Did you pray?” breathed Frank, drawing her to his knee. “Bless you,
sweet little Felicia! Perhaps it was your prayer that saved my life!”
“Do you think so?”
“It may be. Who knows?”
“Quien sabe,” said Juan Delores. “But it was not Gunnison Bill dat be
most dangerous. It was da odder. I know him—I know Anton
Mescal!”
“Anton Mescal?” shouted Frank, leaping to his feet and clutching the
man’s arm. “Good heavens! do you mean to tell me that the man
with Gunnison Bill was Anton Mescal?”
“Dat his name. He come here an’ try to bluff me two days ago. I
laugh at him. He swear he make me laugh some odder way. He try
to keep his word.”
“Anton Mescal!” repeated Merry, in deep emotion. “And it was too
dark for me to recognize the wretch who stole the message from me!
Oh, if I had grappled with him, instead of Gunnison Bill!”
“Oh, if I had bored him with a bullet!” grated Hodge, who was even
more excited than Merry.
“You know him?” questioned Delores.
“Know him?” said Frank. “I never saw the scoundrel but once in my
life, but on that occasion he snatched from my hands the dying
message sent me by my father, who, I believe, is buried in this
valley.”
Delores could not help being impressed by the words and manner of
the two young men.