SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Forestist / 2018 / Cilt: 68 Sayı: 2

Comparing Shannon entropy with Deng entropy and improved Deng entropy for measuring biodiversity when a priori data is not clear

Öncü verinin belirsizliği durumunda biyoçeşitliğin belirlenmesinde Shannon entropisinin Deng entropisi ve geliştirilmiş Deng Entropisi ile karşılaştırılması

Kürşad ÖZKAN
Journal
Forestist
Pages
136–140
Publication Date
2018-07-20
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

There are two reasons for this result: 1) Mass functions cannot be used when computing the Shannon entropy, and 2) Deng entropy does not take into consideration the scale of the frame of discernment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:DOI: 10.26650/forestist.2018.340634The various diversity measures used to measure biodiversity include the Margalef index, McIntosh index, Simpson index, Brillouin index, and Shannon entropy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Of these measures, the most popular is Shannon entropy (H).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There are two reasons for this result: 1) Mass functions cannot be used when computing the Shannon entropy, and 2) Deng entropy does not take into consideration the scale of the frame of discernment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Geliştirilmiş kanaat entropisi · bilgi teorisi · belirsizlik

Abstract

DOI: 10.26650/forestist.2018.340634The various diversity measures used to measure biodiversity include the Margalef index, McIntosh index, Simpson index, Brillouin index, and Shannon entropy. Of these measures, the most popular is Shannon entropy (H). In this study, with respect to measuring biodiversity, we compare Shannon entropy-the essential aspect of information theory-with the Deng and improved Deng entropies, as proposed within the framework of the Dempster–Shafer evidential theory. To do so, we used a hypothetical dataset of three complexes. Based on this hypothetic data, ecologically speaking, we obtained the most reasonable result from the improved Deng entropy. There are two reasons for this result: 1) Mass functions cannot be used when computing the Shannon entropy, and 2) Deng entropy does not take into consideration the scale of the frame of discernment.

Özet

DOI: 10.26650/forestist.2018.340634Biyolojik çeşitliliğin belirlenmesinde Margalef indeksi, McIntosh indeksi, Simpson indeksi, Brillouin indeksi ve Shannon entropisi gibi birçok çeşitlilik indisi kullanılmaktadırlar. Bu indisler arasındaki en popular olanı Shannon entropisidir. Bu çalışma biyolojik çeşitliğin ölçümüne yönelik olarak bilgi teorisinin temel eşitliği olan Shannon entropis ile Demster-Shafer Delil Teorisi’nin ölçümlerinden olan Deng entropisi ve Geliştirilmiş Deng entropisini karşılaştırmak için gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmada 3 kompleksten oluşan hipotetik bir veri kullanılmıştır. Kullanılan hipotetik veri ile gerçekleştirilen hesaplamaların sonucunda, ekolojik açıdan en makul sonuçlar Geliştirilmiş Deng entropisi ile elde edilmiştir. Bu sonucun iki sebebi bulunmaktadır. Birincisi Shannon entropisi hesaplanırken kütle fonksiyonları kullanılamamaktadır. İkincisi ise Deng entropisinin sezgisel yapı ölçeğini dikkate almamasıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, K. (2018). Comparing Shannon entropy with Deng entropy and improved Deng entropy for measuring biodiversity when a priori data is not clear. Forestist, Cilt: 68 Sayı: 2, 136–140. https://ajindex.com/articles/990303

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Chin, K.S., Fu, C., Wang, Y., 2015. A method of determining attribute weights in evidential reasoning approach based on incompatibility among attributes. Computers and Industrial Engineering vol. 87, pp. 150-162.
  2. Deng, Y., 2016.
  3. Deng entropy. Chaos, Solitions and Fractals vol. 91, pp. 549-553.
  4. Doyle, L.R., 2009. Quantification of Information in a One-Way Plant to Animal Communication System. Entropy 11, pp. 431-442.
  5. Du, W.S., Hu, B.Q., 2016. Attribute reduction in ordered decision tables via evidence theory. Information Science vol. 364-365, pp. 91-110.
  6. Dubois, D., Prade, H., 1985. A note on measures of specificity for fuzzy sets. International Journal of General Systems vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 279-283.
  7. Fu, C., Wang, Y., 2015. An interval difference based evidential reasoning approach with unknown attribute weights and utilities of assessment grades. Computers and Industrial Engineering vol.81, pp. 109-117.
  8. George, T., Pal, N.R., 1996. Quantification of conflict in Dempster-Shafer framework: a new approach. International Journal of General Systems vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 407-423.
  9. Gorelick, R., 2006. Combining richness and abundance into a single diversity index using matrix analogues of Shannon’s and Simpson’s indices. Ecography 29, 525-530.
  10. Jiang, W., Xie, C., Wei, B., Zhou, D., 2016a. A Improved method for risk evaluation in failure models and effects analysis of aircraft turbine rotor blades. Advances in Mechanical Enginnering vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1-16.
  11. Jiang, W, Wei, B, Xie, C, Zhou, D., 2016b. An evidential sensor fusion method in fault diagnosis. Advances in Mechanic Engineering vol 8(3), pp. 1-7.
  12. Jiang, W., Wei, B., Qin, X., Zhan, J., Tang, Y., 2016c. Sensor data fusion based on a new conflict measure. Mathematical Problems in Engineering vol. 2016, p.11. Jiang, W., Xie, C., Zhuang, M., Shou, Y., Tang, Y., 2016d. Sensor data fusion with z-numbers and its application in fault diagnosis. Sensor vol. 16, no. 9, p.1509. Jost, L., 2006. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113, 363-375.
  13. Klir, G.J., Ramer, A., 1990. Uncertainly in the Dempster-Shafer theory: a critical re-examination. International Journal of General Systems vol. 18, no.2, pp. 155-166.
  14. Liu, Z., Pan, Q., Dezert, J., 2013. A new belief-based K-nearest neighbor classification method. Pattern Recognition vol. 46, no.3, pp. 834-844.
  15. Liu, Z.G., Pan, Q., Dezert, J., Martin, A. 2016. Adaptive imputation of missing values for incomplete pattern classification. Pattern Recognition vol. 52, pp. 85-95.
  16. Ma, J., Liu, W.