Re-investigating Dempster's idea on evidence combination.

In this paper, we investigate the problem encountered by Dempster's combination rule in view of Dempster's original combination framework. We first show that the root of Dempster's combination rule (defined and named by Shafer) is Dempster's original idea on evidence combination. We then argue that Dempster's original idea on evidence combination is, in fact, richer than what has been formulated in the rule. We conclude that, by strictly following what Dempster has suggested, there should be no counterintuitive results when combining evidence.