The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence has been used intensively to deal with uncertainty in knowledge-based systems. However the representation of uncertain relationships between evidence and hypothesis groups (heuristic knowledge) is still a major research problem. This paper presents an approach to representing such heuristic knowledge by evidential mappings which are defined on the basis of mass functions. The relationships between evidential mappings and multi valued mappings, as well as between evidential mappings and Bayesian multi- valued causal link models in Bayesian theory are discussed. Following this the detailed procedures for constructing evidential mappings for any set of heuristic rules are introduced. Several situations of belief propagation are discussed.

Bayesian networks are directed acyclic graphs representing independence relationships among a set of random variables. A random variable can be regarded as a set of exhaustive and mutually exclusive propositions. We argue that there are several drawbacks resulting from the propositional nature and acyclic structure of Bayesian networks. To remedy these shortcomings, we propose a probabilistic network where nodes represent unary predicates and which may contain directed cycles. The proposed representation allows us to represent domain knowledge in a single static network even though we cannot determine the instantiations of the predicates before hand. The ability to deal with cycles also enables us to handle cyclic causal tendencies and to recognize recursive plans.

Automated decision making is often complicated by the complexity of the knowledge involved. Much of this complexity arises from the context sensitive variations of the underlying phenomena. We propose a framework for representing descriptive, context-sensitive knowledge. Our approach attempts to integrate categorical and uncertain knowledge in a network formalism. This paper outlines the basic representation constructs, examines their expressiveness and efficiency, and discusses the potential applications of the framework.

This paper presents a Bayesian framework for assessing the adequacy of a model without the necessity of explicitly enumerating a specific alternate model. A test statistic is developed for tracking the performance of the model across repeated problem instances. Asymptotic methods are used to derive an approximate distribution for the test statistic. When the model is rejected, the individual components of the test statistic can be used to guide search for an alternate model.

The leading contender is Levi's When the set contains only one function, convex conditionalization and E-admissibility reduce to their strict Bayesian counterparts. Thus, with respect to decision making and representing and updating uncertainty, convex Bay· esianism includes strict Bayesianism as a special case. There are natural constraints on probability judg-- ments that cannot be represented by convex sets of classical probability functions. Working with the convex hull of a nonconvex set of probability func-- tions may result in unnecessary indecisiveness. This is not a convex set. Judgments of irrelevance (conditional irrelevance), that is, probabilistic independence (conditional independence}, are often made, are natural to make, can be made reliably, and provide well-known computational advantages [Pearl, 1988].

A number of writers(Joseph Halpern and Fahiem Bacchus among them) have offered semantics for formal languages in which inferences concerning probabilities can be made. Our concern is different. This paper provides a formalization of nonmonotonic inferences in which the conclusion is supported only to a certain degree. Such inferences are clearly 'invalid' since they must allow the falsity of a conclusion even when the premises are true. Nevertheless, such inferences can be characterized both syntactically and semantically. The 'premises' of probabilistic arguments are sets of statements (as in a database or knowledge base), the conclusions categorical statements in the language. We provide standards for both this form of inference, for which high probability is required, and for an inference in which the conclusion is qualified by an intermediate interval of support.

A new entropy-like measure as well as a new measure of total uncertainty pertaining to the Dempster-Shafer theory are introduced. It is argued that these measures are better justified than any of the previously proposed candidates.

The fundamental updating process in the transferable belief model is related to the concept of specialization and can be described by a specialization matrix. The degree of belief in the truth of a proposition is a degree of justified support. The Principle of Minimal Commitment implies that one should never give more support to the truth of a proposition than justified. We show that Dempster's rule of conditioning corresponds essentially to the least committed specialization, and that Dempster's rule of combination results essentially from commutativity requirements. The concept of generalization, dual to thc concept of specialization, is described.

A computational scheme for reasoning about dynamic systems using (causal) probabilistic networks is presented. The scheme is based on the framework of Lauritzen and Spiegelhalter (1988), and may be viewed as a generalization of the inference methods of classical time-series analysis in the sense that it allows description of non-linear, multivariate dynamic systems with complex conditional independence structures. Further, the scheme provides a method for efficient backward smoothing and possibilities for efficient, approximate forecasting methods. The scheme has been implemented on top of the HUGIN shell.

We recently described a formalism for reasoning with if-then rules that re expressed with different levels of firmness [18]. The formalism interprets these rules as extreme conditional probability statements, specifying orders of magnitude of disbelief, which impose constraints over possible rankings of worlds. It was shown that, once we compute a priority function Z+ on the rules, the degree to which a given query is confirmed or denied can be computed in O(log n`) propositional satisfiability tests, where n is the number of rules in the knowledge base. In this paper, we show that computing Z+ requires O(n2 X log n) satisfiability tests, not an exponential number as was conjectured in [18], which reduces to polynomial complexity in the case of Horn expressions. We also show how reasoning with imprecise observations can be incorporated in our formalism and how the popular notions of belief revision and epistemic entrenchment are embodied naturally and tractably.