As the technology for building knowledge based systems has matured, important lessons have been learned about the relationship between the architecture of a system and the nature of the problems it is intended to solve. We are implementing a knowledge engineering tool called BART that is designed with these lessons in mind. BART is a Bayesian reasoning tool that makes belief networks and other probabilistic techniques available to knowledge engineers building classificatory problem solvers. BART has already been used to develop a decision aid for classifying ship images, and it is currently being used to manage uncertainty in systems concerned with analyzing intelligence reports. This paper discusses how state-of-the-art probabilistic methods fit naturally into a knowledge based approach to classificatory problem solving, and describes the current capabilities of BART.

An efficient algorithm is developed that identifies all independencies implied by the topology of a Bayesian network. Its correctness and maximality stems from the soundness and completeness of d-separation with respect to probability theory. The algorithm runs in time O (l E l) where E is the number of edges in the network.

This paper demonstrates a methodology for examining the accuracy of uncertain inference systems (UIS), after their parameters have been optimized, and does so for several common UIS's. This methodology may be used to test the accuracy when either the prior assumptions or updating formulae are not exactly satisfied. Surprisingly, these UIS's were revealed to be no more accurate on the average than a simple linear regression. Moreover, even on prior distributions which were deliberately biased so as give very good accuracy, they were less accurate than the simple probabilistic model which assumes marginal independence between inputs. This demonstrates that the importance of updating formulae can outweigh that of prior assumptions. Thus, when UIS's are judged by their final accuracy after optimization, we get completely different results than when they are judged by whether or not their prior assumptions are perfectly satisfied.

While concept-based methods for information retrieval can provide improved performance over more conventional techniques, they require large amounts of effort to acquire the concepts and their qualitative and quantitative relationships. This paper discusses an architecture for probabilistic concept-based information retrieval which addresses the knowledge acquisition problem. The architecture makes use of the probabilistic networks technology for representing and reasoning about concepts and includes a knowledge acquisition component which partially automates the construction of concept knowledge bases from data. We describe two experiments that apply the architecture to the task of retrieving documents about terrorism from a set of documents from the Reuters news service. The experiments provide positive evidence that the architecture design is feasible and that there are advantages to concept-based methods.

Comprehensible explanations of probabilistic reasoning are a prerequisite for wider acceptance of Bayesian methods in expert systems and decision support systems. A study of human reasoning under uncertainty suggests two different strategies for explaining probabilistic reasoning: The first, qualitative belief propagation, traces the qualitative effect of evidence through a belief network from one variable to the next. This propagation algorithm is an alternative to the graph reduction algorithms of Wellman (1988) for inference in qualitative probabilistic networks. It is based on a qualitative analysis of intercausal reasoning, which is a generalization of Pearl's "explaining away", and an alternative to Wellman's definition of qualitative synergy. The other, Scenario-based reasoning, involves the generation of alternative causal "stories" accounting for the evidence. Comparing a few of the most probable scenarios provides an approximate way to explain the results of probabilistic reasoning. Both schemes employ causal as well as probabilistic knowledge. Probabilities may be presented as phrases and/or numbers. Users can control the style, abstraction and completeness of explanations.

In recent years, there have been intense research efforts to develop efficient methods for probabilistic inference in probabilistic influence diagrams or belief networks. Many people have concluded that the best methods are those based on undirected graph structures, and that those methods are inherently superior to those based on node reduction operations on the influence diagram. We show here that these two approaches are essentially the same, since they are explicitly or implicity building and operating on the same underlying graphical structures. In this paper we examine those graphical structures and show how this insight can lead to an improved class of directed reduction methods.

An automated explanation facility for Bayesian conditioning aimed at improving user acceptance of probability-based decision support systems has been developed. The domain-independent facility is based on an information processing perspective on reasoning about conditional evidence that accounts both for biased and normative inferences. Experimental results indicate that the facility is both acceptable to naive users and effective in improving understanding.

This paper examines the accuracy of the PROSPECTOR model for uncertain reasoning. PROSPECTOR's solutions for a large number of computer-generated inference networks were compared to those obtained from probability theory and minimum cross-entropy calculations. PROSPECTOR's answers were generally accurate for a restricted subset of problems that are consistent with its assumptions. However, even within this subset, we identified conditions under which PROSPECTOR's performance deteriorates.

In recent years, researchers in decision analysis and artificial intelligence (AI) have used Bayesian belief networks to build models of expert opinion. Using standard methods drawn from the theory of computational complexity, workers in the field have shown that the problem of exact probabilistic inference on belief networks almost certainly requires exponential computation in the worst ease [3]. We have previously described a randomized approximation scheme, called BN-RAS, for computation on belief networks [ 1, 2, 4]. We gave precise analytic bounds on the convergence of BN-RAS and showed how to trade running time for accuracy in the evaluation of posterior marginal probabilities. We now extend our previous results and demonstrate the generality of our framework by applying similar mathematical techniques to the analysis of convergence for logic sampling [7], an alternative simulation algorithm for probabilistic inference.

In this paper, we examine the concept of modularity, an often cited advantage of the ruled-based representation methodology. We argue that the notion of modularity consists of two distinct concepts which we call syntactic modularity and semantic modularity. We argue that when reasoning under certainty, it is reasonable to regard the rule-based approach as both syntactically and semantically modular. However, we argue that in the case of plausible reasoning, rules are syntactically modular but are rarely semantically modular. To illustrate this point, we examine a particular approach for managing uncertainty in rule-based systems called the MYCIN certainty factor model. We formally define the concept of semantic modularity with respect to the certainty factor model and discuss logical consequences of the definition. We show that the assumption of semantic modularity imposes strong restrictions on rules in a knowledge base. We argue that such restrictions are rarely valid in practical applications. Finally, we suggest how the concept of semantic modularity can be relaxed in a manner that makes it appropriate for plausible reasoning.