Talk:Transferable belief model

I have just created this introductory article on a research topic that, I think, is very promising. I read a few papers on the Transferable Belief Model and it seems to me a valid alternative, for some cases, to the broadly known Probability Theory and to the often overestimated Dempster-Shafer theory.

I rewrote the article to reflect the fundamental historical reason why P.Smets developped the TBM. Think the DST article needs improvement too. HDMinh 193.51.120.172 14:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of notability

Does anyone know enough about this to say that this is actually distinct from the Dempster-Shafer theory, as opposed to just saying that all possible combinations of outcomes should be considered within that theory. It looks as if most of the publications reaached via the "external links" involve someone called Smets and I am not clear that the 2 references I added to the article are by independent sources. So just how "notable" is this topic? It doesn't seem to stir much interest from editors. Melcombe (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not very clear

This article seems to be written exclusively for people that already have extensive understanding of the subject and terminology. It could use an introduction that better explains what it is to the layman. Andacar (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced a new structure and added a few facts, links and references, hopefully improving the readability of the article. Despite that, the quality of the article explaining the DST, which is the basis for this article, should be improved. Then it would be much easier to add more content here. I also think a separate article that comprehensively introduces Zadeh’s example would be helpful in order to describe the DST and their numerous elaborations, e.g. TBM and Subjective logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgree (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of inline citations

I added a few inline-citation for the paragraphs I added or changed. For the two remaining paragraphs (Zadehs example and open world assumption) I'am not exactly sure about the source publications. It might be Smets and Kennes, 1994 as well. I would suggest removing the maintenance template "lack of inline citations". What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgree (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]