From 46ba407a7af1323a1a32e691826319917ab08ffd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Brandon Rozek <brozek@brandonrozek.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 14:14:03 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] New Post

---
 .../blog/intro-dempster-shafer-possibility.md | 120 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 content/blog/intro-dempster-shafer-possibility.md

diff --git a/content/blog/intro-dempster-shafer-possibility.md b/content/blog/intro-dempster-shafer-possibility.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6edf5bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/intro-dempster-shafer-possibility.md
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+---
+title: "Introduction to Dempster-Shafer Theory"
+date: 2024-10-29T12:38:21-04:00
+draft: false
+tags: []
+math: true
+medium_enabled: false
+---
+
+Imagine sitting by a tree full of birds. You know the tree only has a Yellow Rumped Warbler ($w$), a Northern Cardinal ($c$), and an American Goldfinch ($g$). These birds are respectful in that they don't call at the same time.
+
+You make the following observations of bird calls:
+$$
+obs = w, w, c, g, g, w
+$$
+What's the probability that we hear a Warbler next assuming the calls are independent from each other?
+$$
+count_w = 3, total = 6, P(w) = \frac{3}{6} = 0.5
+$$
+This example assumes that we're bird call experts and are able to uniquely determine each bird call. What happens if our observations are *imprecise*? 
+
+## Dempster-Shafer Theory (DST)
+
+DST, otherwise known as belief functions theory or the theory of evidence, looks at what happens if we allow each observation to be a disjunction ($\vee$)?
+$$
+obs = w \vee c \vee g, c, w \vee c, w \vee g
+$$
+There can be many reasons for this. Maybe our hearing isn't so good. There's additional noise around you disrupting your sensing.
+
+Formally, let us define $\Omega$ to be our event space. In this example, this is the set of possible bird calls.
+$$
+\Omega = \\{w, c, g\\}
+$$
+**The mass function** $m: A \rightarrow [0, 1], \forall A \subseteq \Omega$ assigns a value between 0 and 1 to every possible subset of our event space. The set $\\{w, g\\}$ represents the observation $w \vee g$.
+
+An important property is that the sum of all the masses are equal to 1.
+$$
+\sum_{A \subseteq \Omega} m(A) = 1
+$$
+In order to derive this mass function, we can normalize our observations from earlier.
+$$
+m(\\{w, c, g\\}) = \frac{1}{4}, m(\\{c\\}) = \frac{1}{4}, m(\\{w, c\\}) = \frac{1}{4}, m(\\{w, g\\}) = \frac{1}{4}
+$$
+We assign the value $0$ to all other subsets of $\Omega$. By definition, $m(\\{\\}) = 0$.
+
+**The plausibility measure** for a disjunctive set $A$ is the sum of all the mass values of the subets of $\Omega$ that intersect with $A$.
+$$
+Pl(A) = \sum_{B \cap A \ne \emptyset}{m(B)}
+$$
+In our example,
+$$
+\begin{align*}
+Pl(\\{w\\}) &= m(\\{w, c, g\\}) + m(\\{w, c\\}) + m(\\{w,g\\}) + m(\\{w\\}) \\\\
+		  &= \frac{3}{4}
+\end{align*}
+$$
+**The necessity measure** is more restrictive in that we only look at the summation of the masses of the subsets of $A$.
+$$
+Nec(A) = \sum_{B \subseteq A}{m(B)}
+$$
+Consider an arbitrary event $a \in \Omega$. Then,
+$$
+\begin{align*}
+Nec(\\{a\\}) &= m(\\{a\\}) + m(\\{\\}) \\\\
+             &= m(\\{a\\})
+\end{align*}
+$$
+Therefore in our example,
+$$
+Nec(\\{w\\}) = 0, Nec(\\{c\\}) = \frac{1}{4}, Nec(\\{g\\}) = 0
+$$
+Another example,
+$$
+\begin{align*}
+Nec(\\{w, c\\}) &= m(\\{w, c\\}) + m(\\{c\\}) + m(\\{w\\}) + m(\\{\\}) \\\\
+                &= \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{4} + 0 + 0 \\\
+                &= 0.5
+\end{align*}
+$$
+**The probability measure** is bounded by the necessity and plausibility measures.
+
+For a disjunctive set $A$,
+$$
+Nec(A) \le P(A) \le Pl(A)
+$$
+Extending probability to a range of values gives us a way to model *ignorance*. We say an agent is completely ignorant if $|\Omega| > 1$ and $m(\Omega) = 1$.
+
+Consider a completely ignorant agent where $\Omega = \\{w, c, g\\}$.
+
+Then,
+$$
+\begin{align*}
+Nec(\\{w\\}) \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le Pl(\\{w\\}) \\\\
+m(\\{w\\}) \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le m(\\{w\\}) + m(\\{w, c\\}) + m(\\{w, g\\}) + m(\\{w, c, g\\}) \\\\
+0 \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le 1
+\end{align*}
+$$
+Probability theory is a subset of Dempster-Shafer theory. In order to see this, let us look at an example of observations where there is no disjunction.
+$$
+obs = w, w, c, g, g, w
+$$
+Normalize our observations to derive the mass function:
+$$
+m(\\{w\\}) = \frac{1}{2}, m(\\{c\\}) = \frac{1}{6}, m(\\{g\\}) = \frac{1}{3}
+$$
+The mass function in this example is $0$ for every non-singleton subset of $\Omega$.
+
+What is the probability range for $w$?
+$$
+\begin{align*}
+Nec(\\{w\\}) \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le Pl(\\{w\\}) \\\\
+m(\\{w\\}) \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le m(\\{w\\}) + m(\\{w, g\\}) + m(\\{w, c\\}) + m(\\{w, c, g\\}) \\\\
+\frac{1}{2} \le P(\\{w\\}) &\le \frac{1}{2} + 0 + 0 + 0
+\end{align*}
+$$
+Therefore, $P(w) = \frac{1}{2}$ as expected in probability theory.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+Dempster-Shafer theory is an attempt at addressing *imprecise observations* through disjunctive events. It extends probability theory to consider not just a single value, but a range of possible values. This allows the model to decouple uncertainty from *ignorance*.