Table 6 Results of different methods in the Iris data set classification.
\(m(\{\theta _1\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _2\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _3\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _1,\theta _2\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _2,\theta _3\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _1,\theta _3\})\) | \(m(\{\theta _1,\theta _2,\theta _3\})\) | \(m(\emptyset )\) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dempster’s method34 | 0.8457 | 0.1543 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Yager’s method76 | 0.5337 | 0.1484 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3180 |
Wang et al.’s method77 | 0.6232 | 0.2671 | 0.1083 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Proposed method | 0.7834 | 0.1961 | 0.0186 | 0.0010 | 0.0002 | 0.0006 | 0 | 0 |
