# Robust Dempster-Shafer Evidence Fusion with Chaos-Conflict Measurement and Historical-Experience Weighting

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13108 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13108/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 2 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [Theoretical Foundations of t-SNE for Visualizing High-Dimensional Clustered Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.07536/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Multi-source evidence fusion under Dempster-Shafer theory faces two persistent challenges: existing conflict measures assess inter-evidence inconsistency and intra-evidence uncertainty independently, yielding incomplete evaluations, and current fusion methods evaluate evidence sources exclusively through instantaneous comparisns without exploiting their long-term reliability across diverse decision contexts. This paper proposes a unified evidence reasoning framework that addresses both limitations. Specifically, a chaos-conflict measurement is introduced to jointly quantify cross-evidence conflict and intra-evidence non-specificity, with five formally proven properties ensuring consistent assessment. A historical experience driven weighting scheme partitions the decision space via spectral clustering and applies regret theory to compute context-specific reliability profiles from past fusion outcomes. These mechanisms feed into a hybrid combination rule that adaptively balances uncertainty preservation against weighted consensus, controlled by the global conflict level, followed by a belief-interval decision strategy that enables robust classification without discarding epistemic uncertainty. Experiments on 16 real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves an average F1 score of 85.78 and a mean AUC of 93.30, outperforming eight DST-based baselines and three gradient boosting methods. Ablation analysis confirms the contribution of each component we proposed. The framework offers an effective approach for adaptive evidence fusion in multi-source decision making.