After a brief introduction to causal probabilistic networks and the HUGIN approach, the problem of conflicting data is discussed. A measure of conflict is defined, and it is used in the medical diagnostic system MUNIN. Finally, it is discussed how to distinguish between conflicting data and a rare case.

A scientific reasoning system makes decisions using objective evidence in the form of independent experimental trials, propositional axioms, and constraints on the probabilities of events. As a first step towards this goal, we propose a system that derives probability intervals from objective evidence in those forms. Our reasoning system can manage uncertainty about data and rules in a rule based expert system. We expect that our system will be particularly applicable to diagnosis and analysis in domains with a wealth of experimental evidence such as medicine. We discuss limitations of this solution and propose future directions for this research. This work can be considered a generalization of Nilsson's "probabilistic logic" [Nil86] to intervals and experimental observations.

We analyzed the convergence properties of likelihood- weighting algorithms on a two-level, multiply connected, belief-network representation of the QMR knowledge base of internal medicine. Specifically, on two difficult diagnostic cases, we examined the effects of Markov blanket scoring, importance sampling, demonstrating that the Markov blanket scoring and self-importance sampling significantly improve the convergence of the simulation on our model.

In this paper the elicitation of probabilities from human experts is considered as a measurement process, which may be disturbed by random 'measurement noise'. Using Bayesian concepts a second order probability distribution is derived reflecting the uncertainty of the input probabilities. The algorithm is based on an approximate sample representation of the basic probabilities. This sample is continuously modified by a stochastic simulation procedure, the Metropolis algorithm, such that the sequence of successive samples corresponds to the desired posterior distribution. The procedure is able to combine inconsistent probabilities according to their reliability and is applicable to general inference networks with arbitrary structure. Dempster-Shafer probability mass functions may be included using specific measurement distributions. The properties of the approach are demonstrated by numerical experiments.

In almost all situation assessment problems, it is useful to dynamically contract and expand the states under consideration as assessment proceeds. Contraction is most often used to combine similar events or low probability events together in order to reduce computation. Expansion is most often used to make distinctions of interest which have significant probability in order to improve the quality of the assessment. Although other uncertainty calculi, notably Dempster-Shafer [Shafer, 1976], have addressed these operations, there has not yet been any approach of refining and coarsening state spaces for the Bayesian Network technology. This paper presents two operations for refining and coarsening the state space in Bayesian Networks. We also discuss their practical implications for knowledge acquisition.

A major difficulty in developing and maintaining very large knowledge bases originates from the variety of forms in which knowledge is made available to the KB builder. The objective of this research is to bring together two complementary knowledge representation schemes: term subsumption languages, which represent and reason about defining characteristics of concepts, and proximate reasoning models, which deal with uncertain knowledge and data in expert systems. Previous works in this area have primarily focused on probabilistic inheritance. In this paper, we address two other important issues regarding the integration of term subsumption-based systems and approximate reasoning models. First, we outline a general architecture that specifies the interactions between the deductive reasoner of a term subsumption system and an approximate reasoner. Second, we generalize the semantics of terminological language so that terminological knowledge can be used to make plausible inferences. The architecture, combined with the generalized semantics, forms the foundation of a synergistic tight integration of term subsumption systems and approximate reasoning models.

This paper derives a formula for computing the conditional probability of a set of candidates, where a candidate is a set of disorders that explain a given set of positive findings. Such candidate sets are produced by a recent method for multidisorder diagnosis called symptom clustering. A symptom clustering represents a set of candidates compactly as a cartesian product of differential diagnoses. By evaluating the probability of a candidate set, then, a large set of candidates can be validated or pruned simultaneously. The probability of a candidate set is then specialized to obtain the probability of a single candidate. Unlike earlier results, the equation derived here allows the specification of positive, negative, and unknown symptoms and does not make assumptions about disorders not in the candidate.

One of the most important aspects in any treatment of uncertain information is the rule of combination for updating the degrees of uncertainty. The theory of belief functions uses the Dempster rule to combine two belief functions defined by independent bodies of evidence. However, with limited dependency information about the accumulated belief the Dempster rule may lead to unsatisfactory results. The present study suggests a method to determine the accumulated belief based on the premise that the information gain from the combination process should be minimum. This method provides a mechanism that is equivalent to the Bayes rule when all the conditional probabilities are available and to the Dempster rule when the normalization constant is equal to one. The proposed principle of minimum information gain is shown to be equivalent to the maximum entropy formalism, a special case of the principle of minimum cross-entropy. The application of this principle results in a monotonic increase in belief with accumulation of consistent evidence. The suggested approach may provide a more reasonable criterion for identifying conflicts among various bodies of evidence.

This paper describes a natural framework for rules, based on belief functions, which includes a repre- sentation of numerical rules, default rules and rules allowing and rules not allowing contraposition. In particular it justifies the use of the Dempster-Shafer Theory for representing a particular class of rules, Belief calculated being a lower probability given certain independence assumptions on an underlying space. It shows how a belief function framework can be generalised to other logics, including a general Monte-Carlo algorithm for calculating belief, and how a version of Reiter's Default Logic can be seen as a limiting case of a belief function formalism.

Decision-theoretic control of search has previously used as its basic unit. of computation the generation and evaluation of a complete set of successors. Although this simplifies analysis, it results in some lost opportunities for pruning and satisficing. This paper therefore extends the analysis of the value of computation to cover individual successor evaluations. The analytic techniques used may prove useful for control of reasoning in more general settings. A formula is developed for the expected value of a node, k of whose n successors have been evaluated. This formula is used to estimate the value of expanding further successors, using a general formula for the value of a computation in game-playing developed in earlier work. We exhibit an improved version of the MGSS* algorithm, giving empirical results for the game of Othello.