We describe a representation and a set of inference methods that combine logic programming techniques with probabilistic network representations for uncertainty (influence diagrams). The techniques emphasize the dynamic construction and solution of probabilistic and decision-theoretic models for complex and uncertain domains. Given a query, a logical proof is produced if possible; if not, an influence diagram based on the query and the knowledge of the decision domain is produced and subsequently solved. A uniform declarative, first-order, knowledge representation is combined with a set of integrated inference procedures for logical, probabilistic, and decision-theoretic reasoning.

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.

An algorithm for automated construction of a sparse Bayesian network given an unstructured probabilistic model and causal domain information from an expert has been developed and implemented. The goal is to obtain a network that explicitly reveals as much information regarding conditional independence as possible. The network is built incrementally adding one node at a time. The expert's information and a greedy heuristic that tries to keep the number of arcs added at each step to a minimum are used to guide the search for the next node to add. The probabilistic model is a predicate that can answer queries about independencies in the domain. In practice the model can be implemented in various ways. For example, the model could be a statistical independence test operating on empirical data or a deductive prover operating on a set of independence statements about the domain.

We describe a method for incrementally constructing belief networks. We have developed a network-construction language similar to a forward-chaining language using data dependencies, but with additional features for specifying distributions. Using this language, we can define parameterized classes of probabilistic models. These parameterized models make it possible to apply probabilistic reasoning to problems for which it is impractical to have a single large static model.

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.

We define a new notion of conditional belief, which plays the same role for Dempster-Shafer belief functions as conditional probability does for probability functions. Our definition is different from the standard definition given by Dempster, and avoids many of the well-known problems of that definition. Just as the conditional probability Pr (lB) is a probability function which is the result of conditioning on B being true, so too our conditional belief function Bel (lB) is a belief function which is the result of conditioning on B being true. We define the conditional belief as the lower envelope (that is, the inf) of a family of conditional probability functions, and provide a closed form expression for it. An alternate way of understanding our definition of conditional belief is provided by considering ideas from an earlier paper [Fagin and Halpern, 1989], where we connect belief functions with inner measures. In particular, we show here how to extend the definition of conditional probability to non measurable sets, in order to get notions of inner and outer conditional probabilities, which can be viewed as best approximations to the true conditional probability, given our lack of information. Our definition of conditional belief turns out to be an exact analogue of our definition of inner conditional probability.

Our previous work on classifying complex ship images [1,2] has evolved into an effort to develop software tools for building and solving generic classification problems. Managing the uncertainty associated with feature data and other evidence is an important issue in this endeavor. Bayesian techniques for managing uncertainty [7,12,13] have proven to be useful for managing several of the belief maintenance requirements of classification problem solving. One such requirement is the need to give qualitative explanations of what is believed. Pearl [11] addresses this need by computing what he calls a belief commitment-the most probable instantiation of all hypothesis variables given the evidence available. Before belief commitments can be computed, the straightforward implementation of Pearl's procedure involves finding an analytical solution to some often difficult optimization problems. We describe an efficient implementation of this procedure using tensor products that solves these problems enumeratively and avoids the need for case by case analysis. The procedure is thereby made more practical to use in the general case.

Stochastic simulation approaches perform probabilistic inference in Bayesian networks by estimating the probability of an event based on the frequency that the event occurs in a set of simulation trials. This paper describes the evidence weighting mechanism, for augmenting the logic sampling stochastic simulation algorithm [Henrion, 1986]. Evidence weighting modifies the logic sampling algorithm by weighting each simulation trial by the likelihood of a network's evidence given the sampled state node values for that trial. We also describe an enhancement to the basic algorithm which uses the evidential integration technique [Chin and Cooper, 1987]. A comparison of the basic evidence weighting mechanism with the Markov blanket algorithm [Pearl, 1987], the logic sampling algorithm, and the evidence integration algorithm is presented. The comparison is aided by analyzing the performance of the algorithms in a simple example network.

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.

A number of algorithms have been developed to solve probabilistic inference problems on belief networks. These algorithms can be divided into two main groups: exact techniques which exploit the conditional independence revealed when the graph structure is relatively sparse, and probabilistic sampling techniques which exploit the "conductance" of an embedded Markov chain when the conditional probabilities have non-extreme values. In this paper, we investigate a family of "forward" Monte Carlo sampling techniques similar to Logic Sampling [Henrion, 1988] which appear to perform well even in some multiply connected networks with extreme conditional probabilities, and thus would be generally applicable. We consider several enhancements which reduce the posterior variance using this approach and propose a framework and criteria for choosing when to use those enhancements.