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).

Various properties of relative entropy have led to its widespread use in information theory. These properties suggest that relative entropy has a role to play in systems that attempt to perform inference in terms of probability distributions. In this paper, I will review some basic properties of relative entropy as well as its role in probabilistic inference. I will also mention briefly a few existing and potential applications of relative entropy to so-called artificial intelligence (AI).

Judea Pearl Computer Science Department, Univenity of California, Loa Angelea The paper demonstrates that strict adherence to probability theory does not preclude the use of concurrent, self-activated constraint-propagation mechanisms for managing uncer tainty. Maintaining local records of sources-of-belief allows both predictive and diagnostic inferences to be activated simultanously and propagate harmoniously towards a stable equillibrium.

The use of maximum entropy inference in reasoning with uncertain information is commonly justified by an information-theoretic argument. This paper discusses a possible objection to this information-theoretic justification and shows how it can be met. I then compare maximum entropy inference with certain other currently popular methods for uncertain reasoning. In making such a comparison, one must distinguish between static and dynamic theories of degrees of belief: a static theory concerns the consistency conditions for degrees of belief at a given time; whereas a dynamic theory concerns how one's degrees of belief should change in the light of new information. It is argued that maximum entropy is a dynamic theory and that a complete theory of uncertain reasoning can be gotten by combining maximum entropy inference with probability theory, which is a static theory. This total theory, I argue, is much better grounded than are other theories of uncertain reasoning.

This paper examines the quantities used by MYCIN to reason with uncertainty, called certainty factors. It is shown that the original definition of certainty factors is inconsistent with the functions used in MYCIN to combine the quantities. This inconsistency is used to argue for a redefinition of certainty factors in terms of the intuitively appealing desiderata associated with the combining functions. It is shown that this redefinition accommodates an unlimited number of probabilistic interpretations. These interpretations are shown to be monotonic transformations of the likelihood ratio p(EIH)/p(El H). The construction of these interpretations provides insight into the assumptions implicit in the certainty factor model. In particular, it is shown that if uncertainty is to be propagated through an inference network in accordance with the desiderata, evidence must be conditionally independent given the hypothesis and its negation and the inference network must have a tree structure. It is emphasized that assumptions implicit in the model are rarely true in practical applications. Methods for relaxing the assumptions are suggested.

We propose an inequality paradigm for probabilistic reasoning based on a logic of upper and lower bounds on conditional probabilities. We investigate a family of probabilistic logics, generalizing the work of Nilsson [14]. We develop a variety of logical notions for probabilistic reasoning, including soundness, completeness justification; and convergence: reduction of a theory to a simpler logical class. We argue that a bound view is especially useful for describing the semantics of probabilistic knowledge representation and for describing intermediate states of probabilistic inference and updating. We show that the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence is formally identical to a special case of our generalized probabilistic logic. Our paradigm thus incorporates both Bayesian "rule-based" approaches and avowedly non-Bayesian "evidential" approaches such as MYCIN and DempsterShafer. We suggest how to integrate the two "schools", and explore some possibilities for novel synthesis of a variety of ideas in probabilistic reasoning.

In the current versions of the Dempster-Shafer theory, the only essential restriction on the validity of the rule of combination is that the sources of evidence must be statistically independent. Under this assumption, it is permissible to apply the Dempster-Shafer rule to two or mere distinct probability distributions.

Box 516, St. Louis, MO 63166 ABSTRACT This paper examines the accuracy of the PROSPECTOR model for uncertain reasoning. PROSPECTOR's solutions for a large number of computer·generated inference networks were compared to those obtained from probe· bility theory and minimum cross-entropy calculations. PROSPECTOR's answers were generally accurate for a restricted subset of problems that are consistent with its assumptions. However, even within this subset, we identified conditions under which PROSPECTOR's perfor· mance deteriorates. I NTRCOUCT I ON Researchers in artificial Intelligence have proposed or implemented several approaches to uncertain reason· in-- for knowledge-based systems.

This paper examines the biases and performance of several uncertain inference systems: Mycin, a variant of Mycin. and a simplified version of probability using conditional independence assumptions. We present axiomatic arguments for using Minimum Cross Entropy inference as the best way to do uncertain inference. For Mycin and its variant we found special situations where its performance was very good, but also situations where performance was worse than random guessing, or where data was interpreted as having the opposite of its true import We have found that all three of these systems usually gave accurate results, and that the conditional independence assumptions gave the most robust results. We illustrate how the Importance of biases may be quantitatively assessed and ranked. Considerations of robustness might be a critical factor is selecting UlS's for a given application.

Linear representations for a subclass of boolean symmetric functions selected by a parity condition are shown to constitute a generalization of the linear constraints on probabilities introduced by Boole. These linear constraints are necessary to compute probabilities of events with relations between the. arbitrarily specified with propositional calculus boolean formulas.