Analyzing a Paradox in Dempster-Shafer Theory

Zadeh has criticized Dempster-Shafer (D-S) theory with a famous counter-example, where an almost impossible case based on two bodies of evidence produces a certain outcome by Dempster's rule of combination. This paper investigates this intuitive paradox by justifying Dempster's rule of combination under Shafer's interpretation for D-S theory. Under Shafer's interpretation, the applicability of Dempster's rule of combination relies on that the bodies of evidence, which will be combined, are D-S independent. The cause of the paradox is that Dempster's rule of combination is applied in a situation that does not satisfy this necessary condition.