In this paper we explore representations of temporal knowledge based upon the formalism of Causal Probabilistic Networks (CPNs). Two different ?continuous-time? representations are proposed. In the first, the CPN includes variables representing ?event-occurrence times?, possibly on different time scales, and variables representing the ?state? of the system at these times. In the second, the CPN describes the influences between random variables with values in () representing dates, i.e. time-points associated with the occurrence of relevant events. However, structuring a system of inter-related dates as a network where all links commit to a single specific notion of cause and effect is in general far from trivial and leads to severe difficulties. We claim that we should recognize explicitly different kinds of relation between dates, such as ?cause?, ?inhibition?, ?competition?, etc., and propose a method whereby these relations are coherently embedded in a CPN using additional auxiliary nodes corresponding to "instrumental" variables. Also discussed, though not covered in detail, is the topic concerning how the quantitative specifications to be inserted in a temporal CPN can be learned from specific data.

This extended abstract presents a logic, called Lp, that is capable of representing and reasoning with a wide variety of both qualitative and quantitative statistical information. The advantage of this logical formalism is that it offers a declarative representation of statistical knowledge; knowledge represented in this manner can be used for a variety of reasoning tasks. The logic differs from previous work in probability logics in that it uses a probability distribution over the domain of discourse, whereas most previous work (e.g., Nilsson [2], Scott et al. [3], Gaifinan [4], Fagin et al. [5]) has investigated the attachment of probabilities to the sentences of the logic (also, see Halpern [6] and Bacchus [7] for further discussion of the differences). The logic Lp possesses some further important features. First, Lp is a superset of first order logic, hence it can represent ordinary logical assertions. This means that Lp provides a mechanism for integrating statistical information and reasoning about uncertainty into systems based solely on logic. Second, Lp possesses transparent semantics, based on sets and probabilities of those sets. Hence, knowledge represented in Lp can be understood in terms of the simple primative concepts of sets and probabilities. And finally, the there is a sound proof theory that has wide coverage (the proof theory is complete for certain classes of models). The proof theory captures a sufficient range of valid inferences to subsume most previous probabilistic uncertainty reasoning systems. For example, the linear constraints like those generated by Nilsson's probabilistic entailment [2] can be generated by the proof theory, and the Bayesian inference underlying belief nets [8] can be performed. In addition, the proof theory integrates quantitative and qualitative reasoning as well as statistical and logical reasoning. In the next section we briefly examine previous work in probability logics, comparing it to Lp. Then we present some of the varieties of statistical information that Lp is capable of expressing. After this we present, briefly, the syntax, semantics, and proof theory of the logic. We conclude with a few examples of knowledge representation and reasoning in Lp, pointing out the advantages of the declarative representation offered by Lp. We close with a brief discussion of probabilities as degrees of belief, indicating how such probabilities can be generated from statistical knowledge encoded in Lp. The reader who is interested in a more complete treatment should consult Bacchus [7].

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.

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.

A scientific reasoning system makes decisions using objective evidence in the form of independent experimental trials, propositional axioms, and constraints on the probabilities of events. As a first step towards this goal, we propose a system that derives probability intervals from objective evidence in those forms. Our reasoning system can manage uncertainty about data and rules in a rule based expert system. We expect that our system will be particularly applicable to diagnosis and analysis in domains with a wealth of experimental evidence such as medicine. We discuss limitations of this solution and propose future directions for this research. This work can be considered a generalization of Nilsson's "probabilistic logic" [Nil86] to intervals and experimental observations.

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.

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.

In this paper the elicitation of probabilities from human experts is considered as a measurement process, which may be disturbed by random 'measurement noise'. Using Bayesian concepts a second order probability distribution is derived reflecting the uncertainty of the input probabilities. The algorithm is based on an approximate sample representation of the basic probabilities. This sample is continuously modified by a stochastic simulation procedure, the Metropolis algorithm, such that the sequence of successive samples corresponds to the desired posterior distribution. The procedure is able to combine inconsistent probabilities according to their reliability and is applicable to general inference networks with arbitrary structure. Dempster-Shafer probability mass functions may be included using specific measurement distributions. The properties of the approach are demonstrated by numerical experiments.

In almost all situation assessment problems, it is useful to dynamically contract and expand the states under consideration as assessment proceeds. Contraction is most often used to combine similar events or low probability events together in order to reduce computation. Expansion is most often used to make distinctions of interest which have significant probability in order to improve the quality of the assessment. Although other uncertainty calculi, notably Dempster-Shafer [Shafer, 1976], have addressed these operations, there has not yet been any approach of refining and coarsening state spaces for the Bayesian Network technology. This paper presents two operations for refining and coarsening the state space in Bayesian Networks. We also discuss their practical implications for knowledge acquisition.

A major difficulty in developing and maintaining very large knowledge bases originates from the variety of forms in which knowledge is made available to the KB builder. The objective of this research is to bring together two complementary knowledge representation schemes: term subsumption languages, which represent and reason about defining characteristics of concepts, and proximate reasoning models, which deal with uncertain knowledge and data in expert systems. Previous works in this area have primarily focused on probabilistic inheritance. In this paper, we address two other important issues regarding the integration of term subsumption-based systems and approximate reasoning models. First, we outline a general architecture that specifies the interactions between the deductive reasoner of a term subsumption system and an approximate reasoner. Second, we generalize the semantics of terminological language so that terminological knowledge can be used to make plausible inferences. The architecture, combined with the generalized semantics, forms the foundation of a synergistic tight integration of term subsumption systems and approximate reasoning models.