Much of the controversy about methods for automated decision making has focused on specific calculi for combining beliefs or propagating uncertainty. We broaden the debate by (1) exploring the constellation of secondary tasks surrounding any primary decision problem, and (2) identifying knowledge engineering concerns that present additional representational tradeoffs. We argue on pragmatic grounds that the attempt to support all of these tasks within a single calculus is misguided. In the process, we note several uncertain reasoning objectives that conflict with the Bayesian ideal of complete specification of probabilities and utilities. In response, we advocate treating the uncertainty calculus as an object language for reasoning mechanisms that support the secondary tasks. Arguments against Bayesian decision theory are weakened when the calculus is relegated to this role. Architectures for uncertainty handling that take statements in the calculus as objects to be reasoned about offer the prospect of retaining normative status with respect to decision making while supporting the other tasks in uncertain reasoning.

In our previous series of studies to investigate the role of evidential reasoning in the RUBRIC system for full-text document retrieval (Tong et al., 1985; Tong and Shapiro, 1985; Tong and Appelbaum, 1987), we identified the important role that problem structure plays in the overall performance of the system. In this paper, we focus on these structural elements (which we now call "semantic structure") and show how explicit consideration of their properties reduces what previously were seen as difficult evidential reasoning problems to more tractable questions.

The multiple extension problem arises frequently in diagnostic and default inference. That is, we can often use any of a number of sets of defaults or possible hypotheses to explain observations or make Predictions. In default inference, some extensions seem to be simply wrong and we use qualitative techniques to weed out the unwanted ones. In the area of diagnosis, however, the multiple explanations may all seem reasonable, however improbable. Choosing among them is a matter of quantitative preference. Quantitative preference works well in diagnosis when knowledge is modelled causally. Here we suggest a framework that combines probabilities and defaults in a single unified framework that retains the semantics of diagnosis as construction of explanations from a fixed set of possible hypotheses. We can then compute probabilities incrementally as we construct explanations. Here we describe a branch and bound algorithm that maintains a set of all partial explanations while exploring a most promising one first. A most probable explanation is found first if explanations are partially ordered.

The comparisons of uncertainty calculi from the last two Uncertainty Workshops have all used theoretical probabilistic accuracy as the sole metric. While mathematical correctness is important, there are other factors which should be considered when developing reasoning systems. These other factors include, among other things, the error in uncertainty measures obtainable for the problem and the effect of this error on the performance of the resulting system. There are some domains in which many of the interesting conditional probabilities can be objectively estimated. For example, census data allows various characterizations of individuals with a reasonable degree of confidence.

ABSTRACI' An evidential reasoning mechanism based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence is introduced. Its performance in real-world image analysis is compared with other mechanisms based on the Bayesian formalism and a simple weight combination method.

This paper discusses the semantics and proof theory of Nilsson's probabilistic logic, outlining both the benefits of its well-defined model theory and the drawbacks of its proof theory. Within Nilsson's semantic framework, we derive a set of inference rules which are provably sound. The resulting proof system, in contrast to Nilsson's approach, has the important feature of convergence - that is, the inference process proceeds by computing increasingly narrow probability intervals which converge from above and below on the smallest entailed probability interval. Thus the procedure can be stopped at any time to yield partial information concerning the smallest entailed interval.

In an earlier paper, a new theory of measurefree "conditional" objects was presented. In this paper, emphasis is placed upon the motivation of the theory. The central part of this motivation is established through an example involving a knowledge-based system. In order to evaluate combination of evidence for this system, using observed data, auxiliary at tribute and diagnosis variables, and inference rules connecting them, one must first choose an appropriate algebraic logic description pair (ALDP): a formal language or syntax followed by a compatible logic or semantic evaluation (or model). Three common choices- for this highly non-unique choice - are briefly discussed, the logics being Classical Logic, Fuzzy Logic, and Probability Logic. In all three,the key operator representing implication for the inference rules is interpreted as the often-used disjunction of a negation (b => a) = (b'v a), for any events a,b. However, another reasonable interpretation of the implication operator is through the familiar form of probabilistic conditioning. But, it can be shown - quite surprisingly - that the ALDP corresponding to Probability Logic cannot be used as a rigorous basis for this interpretation! To fill this gap, a new ALDP is constructed consisting of "conditional objects", extending ordinary Probability Logic, and compatible with the desired conditional probability interpretation of inference rules. It is shown also that this choice of ALDP leads to feasible computations for the combination of evidence evaluation in the example. In addition, a number of basic properties of conditional objects and the resulting Conditional Probability Logic are given, including a characterization property and a developed calculus of relations.

More precisely, given an evaluation of certain evidences, an evidential reasoning scheme generates an evaluation of certain hypotheses. When the evaluation of the evidences Is a binary one, that Is, we either have an evidence or do not have that evidence, the scheme acts as a set function for each hypothesis: a value as an evaluation of the hypothesis Is assigned to each subset of evidences. When the evaluation of hypotheses is also a binary one, the scheme can be represented by a collection of boolean "If-then" rules. Various approaches may be used to mak e this collection more compact. Intermediate concepts, default rules, and other Inventions I Ik e the "choice components" in SEEK2 are among these approaches. The problem becomes more compl lcated when the evaluation of hypotheses uses values from a I inearly ordered set (Integers, real numbers, or I lngulstlc quantifiers) or a partially ordered set (Intervals or property hierarchies). It becomes even more complex when hypotheses are related to each other (Shafer's theory Is an example when hypotheses are subsets of a set), or when the evaluation of evidences are not binary (systems where hypotheses can serve as evidences to other hypothese are examp I es).

RUM (Reasoning with Uncertainty Module), is an integrated software tool based on a KEE, a frame system implemented in an object oriented language. RUM's architecture is composed of three layers: representation, inference, and control. The representation layer is based on frame-like data structures that capture the uncertainty information used in the inference layer and the uncertainty meta-information used in the control layer. The inference layer provides a selection of five T-norm based uncertainty calculi with which to perform the intersection, detachment, union, and pooling of information. The control layer uses the meta-information to select the appropriate calculus for each context and to resolve eventual ignorance or conflict in the information. This layer also provides a context mechanism that allows the system to focus on the relevant portion of the knowledge base, and an uncertain-belief revision system that incrementally updates the certainty values of well-formed formulae (wffs) in an acyclic directed deduction graph. RUM has been tested and validated in a sequence of experiments in both naval and aerial situation assessment (SA), consisting of correlating reports and tracks, locating and classifying platforms, and identifying intents and threats. An example of naval situation assessment is illustrated. The testbed environment for developing these experiments has been provided by LOTTA, a symbolic simulator implemented in Flavors. This simulator maintains time-varying situations in a multi-player antagonistic game where players must make decisions in light of uncertain and incomplete data. RUM has been used to assist one of the LOTTA players to perform the SA task.

This paper describes a heuristic Bayesian method for computing probability distributions from experimental data, based upon the normal distribution form of the influence diagram. An example illustrates its use in medical technology assessment. This approach facilitates the integration of results from different studies, and permits a medical expert to make proper assessments without considerable statistical training. There has been extensive research on the construction and manipulation of expert systems using probabilities as a measure for uncertainty. These systems are capable of recognizing considerable dependence and of learning from unreliable observations.