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.

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.

However, the theory has not been implemented for reasoning in expert systems due to.its difficulty dealing with uncertain rules. More recently, several extenstions to the theory has been proposed to overcome this difficulty [Yen, 1986a] [Liu, 1986]. Based on Yen's extended DS theory, we have implemented a prototype expert system, named GERTIS (General Evidential Reasoning Tool for Intelligent Systems), that diagnoses rheumatoid arthritis. We chose unspecified polyarthritis as the area of our medical consultation system because the diagnoses form a disease hierarchy, which fits Dempster-Shafer based reasoning best. GERTIS uses the knowledge base of OADIAG-2, a medical expert system developed by Peter Adlassnig [Adlassnig, 1985a,b]. Through the use of OADIAG-2's knowledge base, relevant evidence and rules have been already identified for the area of arthritis. In order to suit the needs of our model, however, the rules of OADIAG-2 were modified and reorganized.

This paper describes NAIVE, a low-level knowledge representation language and inferencing process. NAIVE has been designed for reasoning about nondeterministic dynamic systems like those found in medicine. Knowledge is represented in a graph structure consisting of nodes, which correspond to the variables describing the system of interest, and arcs, which correspond to the procedures used to infer the value of a variable from the values of other variables. The value of a variable can be determined at an instant in time, over a time interval or for a series of times. Information about the value of a variable is expressed as a probability density function which quantifies the likelihood of each possible value. The inferencing process uses these probability density functions to propagate uncertainty. NAIVE has been used to develop medical knowledge bases including over 100 variables.

Bayes belief networks and influence diagrams are tools for constructing coherent probabilistic representations of uncertain knowledge. The process of constructing such a network to represent an expert's knowledge is used to illustrate a variety of techniques which can facilitate the process of structuring and quantifying uncertain relationships. These include some generalizations of the "noisy OR gate" concept. Sensitivity analysis of generic elements of Bayes' networks provides insight into when rough probability assessments are sufficient and when greater precision may be important.

David Beckerman and Holly Jimison Medical Computer Science Group Knowledge Systems Laboratory Stanford University Medical School Office Building, Room 215 Stanford, California 94305 We examine a Bayesian approach for accommodating beliefs and preferences that are held with partial confidence. An important notion highlighted by the method is that additional modeling can be valuable when complete confidence is lacking. We develop a meta-decision-analytic approach to balance the benefits of additional modeling with associated costs. We show how the approach can be used during knowledge acquisition to focus the attention of a knowledge engineer or expert on parts of a decision model that deserve additional refinement.

This paper examines Bayesian belief network inference using simulation as a method for computing the posterior probabilities of network variables. Specifically, it examines the use of a method described by Henrion, called logic sampling, and a method described by Pearl, called stochastic simulation. We first review the conditions under which logic sampling is computationally infeasible. Such cases motivated the development of the Pearl's stochastic simulation algorithm. We have found that this stochastic simulation algorithm, when applied to certain networks, leads to much slower than expected convergence to the true posterior probabilities. This behavior is a result of the tendency for local areas in the network to become fixed through many simulation cycles. The time required to obtain significant convergence can be made arbitrarily long by strengthening the probabilistic dependency between nodes. We propose the use of several forms of graph modification, such as graph pruning, arc reversal, and node reduction, in order to convert some networks into formats that are computationally more efficient for simulation.

This paper presents an application of the Dempster-Shafer evidence combination scheme in building a rule based expert system shell for diagnostic reasoning. Domain knowledge is stored as rules with associated belief functions. The reasoning component uses a combination of forward and backward inferencing mechanisms to interact with the user in a mixed initiative format.

The apparent failure of individual probabilistic expressions to distinguish uncertainty about truths from uncertainty about probabilistic assessments have prompted researchers to seek formalisms where the two types of uncertainties are given notational distinction. This paper demonstrates that the desired distinction is already a built-in feature of classical probabilistic models, thus, specialized notations are unnecessary.