Judging by the increasing impact of machine learning on large-scale data analysis in the last decade, one can anticipate a substantial growth in diversity of the machine learning applications for "big data" over the next decade. This exciting new opportunity, however, also raises many challenges. One of them is scaling inference within and training of graphical models. Typical ways to address this scaling issue are inference by approximate message passing, stochastic gradients, and MapReduce, among others. Often, we encounter inference and training problems with symmetries and redundancies in the graph structure. It has been shown that inference and training can indeed benefit from exploiting symmetries, for example by lifting loopy belief propagation (LBP).% can be lifted. That is, a model is compressed by grouping nodes together that send and receive identical messages so that a modified LBP running on the lifted graph yields the same marginals as LBP on the original one, but often in a fraction of time. By establishing a link between lifting and radix sort, we show that lifting is MapReduce-able and thus combine the two orthogonal approaches to scaling inference, namely exploiting symmetries and employing parallel computations.

Graphical models have gained a lot of attention recently as a tool for learning and representing dependencies among variables in multivariate data. Often, domain scientists are looking specifically for differences among the dependency networks of different conditions or populations (e.g. differences between regulatory networks of different species, or differences between dependency networks of diseased versus healthy populations). The standard method for finding these differences is to learn the dependency networks for each condition independently and compare them. We show that this approach is prone to high false discovery rates (low precision) that can render the analysis useless. We then show that by imposing a bias towards learning similar dependency networks for each condition the false discovery rates can be reduced to acceptable levels, at the cost of finding a reduced number of differences. Algorithms developed in the transfer learning literature can be used to vary the strength of the imposed similarity bias and provide a natural mechanism to smoothly adjust this differential precision-recall tradeoff to cater to the requirements of the analysis conducted. We present real case studies (oncological and neurological) where domain experts use the proposed technique to extract useful differential networks that shed light on the biological processes involved in cancer and brain function.

The intuitive notion of evidence has both semantic and syntactic features. In this paper, we develop an {\em evidence logic} for epistemic agents faced with possibly contradictory evidence from different sources. The logic is based on a neighborhood semantics, where a neighborhood $N$ indicates that the agent has reason to believe that the true state of the world lies in $N$. Further notions of relative plausibility between worlds and beliefs based on the latter ordering are then defined in terms of this evidence structure, yielding our intended models for evidence-based beliefs. In addition, we also consider a second more general flavor, where belief and plausibility are modeled using additional primitive relations, and we prove a representation theorem showing that each such general model is a $p$-morphic image of an intended one. This semantics invites a number of natural special cases, depending on how uniform we make the evidence sets, and how coherent their total structure. We give a structural study of the resulting `uniform' and `flat' models. Our main result are sound and complete axiomatizations for the logics of all four major model classes with respect to the modal language of evidence, belief and safe belief. We conclude with an outlook toward logics for the dynamics of changing evidence, and the resulting language extensions and connections with logics of plausibility change.

Logic programs under the stable model semantics, or answer-set programs, provide an expressive rule-based knowledge representation framework, featuring a formal, declarative and well-understood semantics. However, handling the evolution of rule bases is still a largely open problem. The AGM framework for belief change was shown to give inappropriate results when directly applied to logic programs under a non-monotonic semantics such as the stable models. The approaches to address this issue, developed so far, proposed update semantics based on manipulating the syntactic structure of programs and rules. More recently, AGM revision has been successfully applied to a significantly more expressive semantic characterisation of logic programs based on SE-models. This is an important step, as it changes the focus from the evolution of a syntactic representation of a rule base to the evolution of its semantic content. In this paper, we borrow results from the area of belief update to tackle the problem of updating (instead of revising) answer-set programs. We prove a representation theorem which makes it possible to constructively define any operator satisfying a set of postulates derived from Katsuno and Mendelzon's postulates for belief update. We define a specific operator based on this theorem, examine its computational complexity and compare the behaviour of this operator with syntactic rule update semantics from the literature. Perhaps surprisingly, we uncover a serious drawback of all rule update operators based on Katsuno and Mendelzon's approach to update and on SE-models.

We advance a doxastic interpretation for many of the logical connectives considered in Dependence Logic and in its extensions, and we argue that Team Semantics is a natural framework for reasoning about beliefs and belief updates.

Considerable attention has been given to the problem of non-monotonic reasoning in a belief function framework. Earlier work (M. Ginsberg) proposed solutions introducing meta-rules which recognized conditional independencies in a probabilistic sense. More recently an e-calculus formulation of default reasoning (J. Pearl) shows that the application of Dempster's rule to a non-monotonic situation produces erroneous results. This paper presents a new belief function interpretation of the problem which combines the rules in a way which is more compatible with probabilistic results and respects conditions of independence necessary for the application of Dempster's combination rule. A new general framework for combining conflicting evidence is also proposed in which the normalization factor becomes modified. This produces more intuitively acceptable results.

Inappropriate use of Dempster's rule of combination has led some authors to reject the Dempster-Shafer model, arguing that it leads to supposedly unacceptable conclusions when defaults are involved. A most classic example is about the penguin Tweety. This paper will successively present: the origin of the miss-management of the Tweety example; two types of default; the correct solution for both types based on the transferable belief model (our interpretation of the Dempster-Shafer model (Shafer 1976, Smets 1988)); Except when explicitly stated, all belief functions used in this paper are simple support functions, i.e. belief functions for which only one proposition (the focus) of the frame of discernment receives a positive basic belief mass with the remaining mass being given to the tautology. Each belief function will be described by its focus and the weight of the focus (e.g. m(A)=.9). Computation of the basic belief masses are always performed by vacuously extending each belief function to the product space built from all variables involved, combining them on that space by Dempster's rule of combination, and projecting the result to the space corresponding to each individual variable.

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.

In this paper, we will review the process of evidence accumulation in the PSEIKI system for expectation-driven interpretation of images of 3-D scenes. Expectations are presented to PSEIKI as a geometrical hierarchy of abstractions. PSEIKI's job is then to construct abstraction hierarchies in the perceived image taking cues from the abstraction hierarchies in the expectations. The Dempster-Shafer formalism is used for associating belief values with the different possible labels for the constructed abstractions in the perceived image. This system has been used successfully for autonomous navigation of a mobile robot in indoor environments.

Attempts to replicate probabilistic reasoning in expert systems have typically overlooked a critical ingredient of that process. Probabilistic analysis typically requires extensive judgments regarding interdependencies among hypotheses and data, and regarding the appropriateness of various alternative models. The application of such models is often an iterative process, in which the plausibility of the results confirms or disconfirms the validity of assumptions made in building the model. In current expert systems, by contrast, probabilistic information is encapsulated within modular rules (involving, for example, "certainty factors"), and there is no mechanism for reviewing the overall form of the probability argument or the validity of the judgments entering into it.