This paper derives a formula for computing the conditional probability of a set of candidates, where a candidate is a set of disorders that explain a given set of positive findings. Such candidate sets are produced by a recent method for multidisorder diagnosis called symptom clustering. A symptom clustering represents a set of candidates compactly as a cartesian product of differential diagnoses. By evaluating the probability of a candidate set, then, a large set of candidates can be validated or pruned simultaneously. The probability of a candidate set is then specialized to obtain the probability of a single candidate. Unlike earlier results, the equation derived here allows the specification of positive, negative, and unknown symptoms and does not make assumptions about disorders not in the candidate.

One of the most important aspects in any treatment of uncertain information is the rule of combination for updating the degrees of uncertainty. The theory of belief functions uses the Dempster rule to combine two belief functions defined by independent bodies of evidence. However, with limited dependency information about the accumulated belief the Dempster rule may lead to unsatisfactory results. The present study suggests a method to determine the accumulated belief based on the premise that the information gain from the combination process should be minimum. This method provides a mechanism that is equivalent to the Bayes rule when all the conditional probabilities are available and to the Dempster rule when the normalization constant is equal to one. The proposed principle of minimum information gain is shown to be equivalent to the maximum entropy formalism, a special case of the principle of minimum cross-entropy. The application of this principle results in a monotonic increase in belief with accumulation of consistent evidence. The suggested approach may provide a more reasonable criterion for identifying conflicts among various bodies of evidence.

This paper describes a natural framework for rules, based on belief functions, which includes a repre- sentation of numerical rules, default rules and rules allowing and rules not allowing contraposition. In particular it justifies the use of the Dempster-Shafer Theory for representing a particular class of rules, Belief calculated being a lower probability given certain independence assumptions on an underlying space. It shows how a belief function framework can be generalised to other logics, including a general Monte-Carlo algorithm for calculating belief, and how a version of Reiter's Default Logic can be seen as a limiting case of a belief function formalism.

This note is concerned with a formal analysis of the problem of nonmonotonic reasoning in intelligent systems, especially when the uncertainty is taken into account in a quantitative way. A firm connection between logic and probability is established by introducing conditioning notions by means of formal structures that do not rely on quantitative measures. The associated conditional logic, compatible with conditional probability evaluations, is nonmonotonic relative to additional evidence. Computational aspects of conditional probability logic are mentioned. The importance of this development lies on its role to provide a conceptual basis for various forms of evidence combination and on its significance to unify multi-valued and nonmonotonic logics. Introduction Consider the case of automated reasoning under uncertainty in which we wish to take into account the uncertainty in a quantitative way.

A framework is presented for a computational theory of probabilistic argument. The Probabilistic Reasoning Environment encodes knowledge at three levels. At the deepest level are a set of schemata encoding the system's domain knowledge. This knowledge is used to build a set of second-level arguments, which are structured for efficient recapture of the knowledge used to construct them. Finally, at the top level is a Bayesian network constructed from the arguments. The system is designed to facilitate not just propagation of beliefs and assimilation of evidence, but also the dynamic process of constructing a belief network, evaluating its adequacy, and revising it when necessary.

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.

This paper describes recent work on an ongoing project in medical diagnosis at the University of Guelph. A domain on which experts are not very good at pinpointing a single disease outcome is explored. On-line medical data is available over a relatively short period of time. Belief Functions (Dempster-Shafer theory) are first extracted from data and then modified with expert opinions. Several methods for doing this are compared and results show that one formulation statistically outperforms the others, including a method suggested by Shafer. Expert opinions and statistically derived information about dependencies among symptoms are also compared. The benefits of using uncertainty management techniques as methods for knowledge acquisition from data are discussed.

Incidence Calculus and Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence are both theories to describe agents' degrees of belief in propositions, thus being appropriate to represent uncertainty in reasoning systems. This paper presents a straightforward equivalence proof between some special cases of these theories.

In this paper a new mathematical procedure is presented for combining different pieces of evidence which are represented in the interval form to reflect our knowledge about the truth of a hypothesis. Evidences may be correlated to each other (dependent evidences) or conflicting in supports (conflicting evidences). First, assuming independent evidences, we propose a methodology to construct combination rules which obey a set of essential properties. The method is based on a geometric model. We compare results obtained from Dempster-Shafer's rule and the proposed combination rules with both conflicting and non-conflicting data and show that the values generated by proposed combining rules are in tune with our intuition in both cases. Secondly, in the case that evidences are known to be dependent, we consider extensions of the rules derived for handling conflicting evidence. The performance of proposed rules are shown by different examples. The results show that the proposed rules reasonably make decision under dependent evidences

This paper presents a new technique for the design of approximate reasoning based controllers for dynamic physical systems with interacting goals. In this approach, goals are achieved based on a hierarchy defined by a control knowledge base and remain highly interactive during the execution of the control task. The approach has been implemented in a rule-based computer program which is used in conjunction with a prototype hardware system to solve the cart-pole balancing problem in real-time. It provides a complementary approach to the conventional analytical control methodology, and is of substantial use where a precise mathematical model of the process being controlled is not available.