Diagnostic reasoning under conflicting data: the application of the transferable belief model

Abstract

One of the issues in diagnostic reasoning is inferring about the location of a fault in cases where process data carry inconsistent or even conflicting evidence. This problem is treated in a systematic way by making use of the transferable belief model (TBM), which represents an approximate reasoning scheme derived from the Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence. The key novelty of TBM concerns the paradigm of the open world, which turns out to lead to a new means of assigning beliefs to anticipated fault candidates. Thus, instead of being ignored, inconsistency of data is displayed in a portion of belief that cannot be allocated to any of the suspected faults but rather to an unknown origin. This item of belief is referred to as the strength of conflict (SC). It is shown in this paper that SC can be interpreted as a degree of confidence in the diagnostic results, which seems to bring a new feature to diagnostic practice. The basics of TBM are reviewed in the paper and the implementation of the underlying ideas in the diagnostic reasoning context is presented. An important contribution concerns the extension of basic TBM reasoning from single observations to a batch of observations by employing the idea of discounting of evidence. The application of TBM to fault isolation in a gas–liquid separation process clearly shows that extended TBM significantly improves the performance of the diagnostic system compared to ordinary TBM as well as classical Boolean framework, especially as regards diagnostic stability and reliability.