The management of uncertainty in expert systems has usually been left to ad hoc representations and rules of combinations lacking either a sound theory or clear semantics. The objective of this paper is to establish a theoretical basis for defining the syntax and semantics of a small subset of calculi of uncertainty operating on a given term set of linguistic statements of likelihood. Each calculus is defined by specifying a negation, a conjunction and a disjunction operator. Families of Triangular norms and conorms constitute the most general representations of conjunction and disjunction operators. These families provide us with a formalism for defining an infinite number of different calculi of uncertainty. The term set will define the uncertainty granularity, i.e. the finest level of distinction among different quantifications of uncertainty. This granularity will limit the ability to differentiate between two similar operators. Therefore, only a small finite subset of the infinite number of calculi will produce notably different results. This result is illustrated by two experiments where nine and eleven different calculi of uncertainty are used with three term sets containing five, nine, and thirteen elements, respectively. Finally, the use of context dependent rule set is proposed to select the most appropriate calculus for any given situation. Such a rule set will be relatively small since it must only describe the selection policies for a small number of calculi (resulting from the analyzed trade-off between complexity and precision).

This study examined the effects of "tuning" the parameters of the incremental function of MYCIN, the independent function of PROSPECTOR, a probability model that assumes independence, and a simple additive linear equation. me parameters of each of these models were optimized to provide solutions which most nearly approximated those from a full probability model for a large set of simple networks. Surprisingly, MYCIN, PROSPECTOR, and the linear equation performed equivalently; the independence model was clearly more accurate on the networks studied.

Explanation facilities are a particularly important feature of expert system frameworks. It is an area in which traditional rule-based expert system frameworks have had mixed results. While explanations about control are well handled, facilities are needed for generating better explanations concerning knowledge base content. This paper approaches the explanation problem by examining the effect an event has on a variable of interest within a symmetric Bayesian inferencing system. We argue that any effect measure operating in this context must satisfy certain properties. Such a measure is proposed. It forms the basis for an explanation facility which allows the user of the Generalized Bayesian Inferencing System to question the meaning of the knowledge base. That facility is described in detail.

We present a representation of partial confidence in belief and preference that is consistent with the tenets of decision-theory. The fundamental insight underlying the representation is that if a person is not completely confident in a probability or utility assessment, additional modeling of the assessment may improve decisions to which it is relevant. We show how a traditional decision-analytic approach can be used to balance the benefits of additional modeling with associated costs. 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.

In this paper, we describe a scheme for propagating belief functions in certain kinds of trees using only local computations. This scheme generalizes the computational scheme proposed by Shafer and Logan1 for diagnostic trees of the type studied by Gordon and Shortliffe, and the slightly more general scheme given by Shafer for hierarchical evidence. It also generalizes the scheme proposed by Pearl for Bayesian causal trees (see Shenoy and Shafer). Pearl's causal trees and Gordon and Shortliffe's diagnostic trees are both ways of breaking the evidence that bears on a large problem down into smaller items of evidence that bear on smaller parts of the problem so that these smaller problems can be dealt with one at a time. This localization of effort is often essential in order to make the process of probability judgment feasible, both for the person who is making probability judgments and for the machine that is combining them. The basic structure for our scheme is a type of tree that generalizes both Pearl's and Gordon and Shortliffe's trees. Trees of this general type permit localized computation in Pearl's sense. They are based on qualitative judgments of conditional independence. We believe that the scheme we describe here will prove useful in expert systems. It is now clear that the successful propagation of probabilities or certainty factors in expert systems requires much more structure than can be provided in a pure production-system framework. Bayesian schemes, on the other hand, often make unrealistic demands for structure. The propagation of belief functions in trees and more general networks stands on a middle ground where some sensible and useful things can be done. We would like to emphasize that the basic idea of local computation for propagating probabilities is due to Judea Pearl. It is a very innovative idea; we do not believe that it can be found in the Bayesian literature prior to Pearl's work. We see our contribution as extending the usefulness of Pearl's idea by generalizing it from Bayesian probabilities to belief functions. In the next section, we give a brief introduction to belief functions. The notions of qualitative independence for partitions and a qualitative Markov tree are introduced in Section III. Finally, in Section IV, we describe a scheme for propagating belief functions in qualitative Markov trees.

Three paediatric cardiologists assessed nearly 1000 imprecise subjective conditional probabilities for a simple belief network representing congenital heart disease, and the quality of the assessments has been measured using prospective data on 200 babies. Quality has been assessed by a Brier scoring rule, which decomposes into terms measuring lack of discrimination and reliability. The results are displayed for each of 27 diseases and 24 questions, and generally the assessments are reliable although there was a tendency for the probabilities to be too extreme. The imprecision allows the judgements to be converted to implicit samples, and by combining with the observed data the probabilities naturally adapt with experience. This appears to be a practical procedure even for reasonably large expert systems.

Knowledge elicitation is one of the major bottlenecks in expert system design. Systems based on Bayes nets require two types of information--network structure and parameters (or probabilities). Both must be elicited from the domain expert. In general, parameters have greater opacity than structure, and more time is spent in their refinement than in any other phase of elicitation. Thus, it is important to determine the point of diminishing returns, beyond which further refinements will promise little (if any) improvement. Sensitivity analyses address precisely this issue--the sensitivity of a model to the precision of its parameters. In this paper, we report the results of a sensitivity analysis of Pathfinder, a Bayes net based system for diagnosing pathologies of the lymph system. This analysis is intended to shed some light on the relative importance of structure and parameters to system performance, as well as the sensitivity of a system based on a Bayes net to noise in its assessed parameters.

Bayesian inference systems should be able to explain their reasoning to users, translating from numerical to natural language. Previous empirical work has investigated the correspondence between absolute probabilities and linguistic phrases. This study extends that work to the correspondence between changes in probabilities (updates) and relative probability phrases, such as "much more likely" or "a little less likely." Subjects selected such phrases to best describe numerical probability updates. We examined three hypotheses about the correspondence, and found the most descriptively accurate of these three to be that each such phrase corresponds to a fixed difference in probability (rather than fixed ratio of probabilities or of odds). The empirically derived phrase selection function uses eight phrases and achieved a 72% accuracy in correspondence with the subjects' actual usage.

Many AI researchers argue that probability theory is only capable of dealing with uncertainty in situations where a full specification of a joint probability distribution is available, and conclude that it is not suitable for application in knowledge-based systems. Probability intervals, however, constitute a means for expressing incompleteness of information. We present a method for computing such probability intervals for probabilities of interest from a partial specification of a joint probability distribution. Our method improves on earlier approaches by allowing for independency relationships between statistical variables to be exploited.

Expert systems applications that involve uncertain inference can be represented by a multidimensional contingency table. These tables offer a general approach to inferring with uncertain evidence, because they can embody any form of association between any number of pieces of evidence and conclusions. (Simpler models may be required, however, if the number of pieces of evidence bearing on a conclusion is large.) This paper presents a method of using these tables to make uncertain inferences without assumptions of conditional independence among pieces of evidence or heuristic combining rules. As evidence is accumulated, new joint probabilities are calculated so as to maintain any dependencies among the pieces of evidence that are found in the contingency table. The new conditional probability of the conclusion is then calculated directly from these new joint probabilities and the conditional probabilities in the contingency table.