Evidential reasoning is cast as the problem of simplifying the evidence-hypothesis relation and constructing combination formulas that possess certain testable properties. Important classes of evidence as identifiers, annihilators, and idempotents and their roles in determining binary operations on intervals of reals are discussed. The appropriate way of constructing formulas for combining evidence and their limitations, for instance, in robustness, are presented.

This paper presents a methodology for research and development of the inferencing and knowledge representation aspects of an Expert System approach for performing reasoning under uncertainty in support of a real time vehicle guidance and navigation system. Such a system could be of major benefit for non-terrain following low altitude flight systems operating in foreign hostile environments such as might be experienced by NOE helicopter or similar mission craft. An innovative extension of the evidential reasoning methodology, termed the Sum-and-Lattice-Points Method, has been developed. The research and development effort presented in this paper consists of a formal mathematical development of the Sum-and-Lattice-Points Method, its formulation and representation in a parallel environment, prototype software development of the method within an expert system, and initial testing of the system within the confines of the vehicle guidance system.

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.

Stochastic simulation approaches perform probabilistic inference in Bayesian networks by estimating the probability of an event based on the frequency that the event occurs in a set of simulation trials. This paper describes the evidence weighting mechanism, for augmenting the logic sampling stochastic simulation algorithm [Henrion, 1986]. Evidence weighting modifies the logic sampling algorithm by weighting each simulation trial by the likelihood of a network's evidence given the sampled state node values for that trial. We also describe an enhancement to the basic algorithm which uses the evidential integration technique [Chin and Cooper, 1987]. A comparison of the basic evidence weighting mechanism with the Markov blanket algorithm [Pearl, 1987], the logic sampling algorithm, and the evidence integration algorithm is presented. The comparison is aided by analyzing the performance of the algorithms in a simple example network.

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.

Much of the controversy about methods for automated decision making has focused on specific calculi for combining beliefs or propagating uncertainty. We broaden the debate by (1) exploring the constellation of secondary tasks surrounding any primary decision problem, and (2) identifying knowledge engineering concerns that present additional representational tradeoffs. We argue on pragmatic grounds that the attempt to support all of these tasks within a single calculus is misguided. In the process, we note several uncertain reasoning objectives that conflict with the Bayesian ideal of complete specification of probabilities and utilities. In response, we advocate treating the uncertainty calculus as an object language for reasoning mechanisms that support the secondary tasks. Arguments against Bayesian decision theory are weakened when the calculus is relegated to this role. Architectures for uncertainty handling that take statements in the calculus as objects to be reasoned about offer the prospect of retaining normative status with respect to decision making while supporting the other tasks in uncertain reasoning.

A number of algorithms have been developed to solve probabilistic inference problems on belief networks. These algorithms can be divided into two main groups: exact techniques which exploit the conditional independence revealed when the graph structure is relatively sparse, and probabilistic sampling techniques which exploit the "conductance" of an embedded Markov chain when the conditional probabilities have non-extreme values. In this paper, we investigate a family of "forward" Monte Carlo sampling techniques similar to Logic Sampling [Henrion, 1988] which appear to perform well even in some multiply connected networks with extreme conditional probabilities, and thus would be generally applicable. We consider several enhancements which reduce the posterior variance using this approach and propose a framework and criteria for choosing when to use those enhancements.

In [12], Nilsson proposed the probabilistic logic in which the truth values of logical propositions are probability values between 0 and 1. It is applicable to any logical system for which the consistency of a finite set of propositions can be established. The probabilistic inference scheme reduces to the ordinary logical inference when the probabilities of all propositions are either 0 or 1. This logic has the same limitations of other probabilistic reasoning systems of the Bayesian approach. For common sense reasoning, consistency is not a very natural assumption. We have some well known examples: {Dick is a Quaker, Quakers are pacifists, Republicans are not pacifists, Dick is a Republican}and {Tweety is a bird, birds can fly, Tweety is a penguin}. In this paper, we shall propose some extensions of the probabilistic logic. In the second section, we shall consider the space of all interpretations, consistent or not. In terms of frames of discernment, the basic probability assignment (bpa) and belief function can be defined. Dempster's combination rule is applicable. This extension of probabilistic logic is called the evidential logic in [ 1]. For each proposition s, its belief function is represented by an interval [Spt(s), Pls(s)]. When all such intervals collapse to single points, the evidential logic reduces to probabilistic logic (in the generalized version of not necessarily consistent interpretations). Certainly, we get Nilsson's probabilistic logic by further restricting to consistent interpretations. In the third section, we shall give a probabilistic interpretation of probabilistic logic in terms of multi-dimensional random variables. This interpretation brings the probabilistic logic into the framework of probability theory. Let us consider a finite set S = {sl, s2, ..., Sn) of logical propositions. Each proposition may have true or false values; and may be considered as a random variable. We have a probability distribution for each proposition. The e-dimensional random variable (sl,..., Sn) may take values in the space of all interpretations of 2n binary vectors. We may compute absolute (marginal), conditional and joint probability distributions. It turns out that the permissible probabilistic interpretation vector of Nilsson [12] consists of the joint probabilities of S. Inconsistent interpretations will not appear, by setting their joint probabilities to be zeros. By summing appropriate joint probabilities, we get probabilities of individual propositions or subsets of propositions. Since the Bayes formula and other techniques are valid for e-dimensional random variables, the probabilistic logic is actually very close to the Bayesian inference schemes. In the last section, we shall consider a relaxation scheme for probabilistic logic. In this system, not only new evidences will update the belief measures of a collection of propositions, but also constraint satisfaction among these propositions in the relational network will revise these measures. This mechanism is similar to human reasoning which is an evaluative process converging to the most satisfactory result. The main idea arises from the consistent labeling problem in computer vision. This method is originally applied to scene analysis of line drawings. Later, it is applied to matching, constraint satisfaction and multi sensor fusion by several authors [8], [16] (and see references cited there). Recently, this method is used in knowledge aggregation by Landy and Hummel [9].

The apparent failure of individual probabilistic expressions to distinguish uncertainty about truths from uncertainty about probabilistic assessments have prompted researchers to seek formalisms where the two types of uncertainties are given notational distinction. This paper demonstrates that the desired distinction is already a built-in feature of classical probabilistic models, thus, specialized notations are unnecessary.

We propose an abductive diagnosis theory that integrates probabilistic, causal and taxonomic knowledge. Probabilistic knowledge allows us to select the most likely explanation; causal knowledge allows us to make reasonable independence assumptions; taxonomic knowledge allows causation to be modeled at different levels of detail, and allows observations be described in different levels of precision. Unlike most other approaches where a causal explanation is a hypothesis that one or more causative events occurred, we define an explanation of a set of observations to be an occurrence of a chain of causation events. These causation events constitute a scenario where all the observations are true. We show that the probabilities of the scenarios can be computed from the conditional probabilities of the causation events. Abductive reasoning is inherently complex even if only modest expressive power is allowed. However, our abduction algorithm is exponential only in the number of observations to be explained, and is polynomial in the size of the knowledge base. This contrasts with many other abduction procedures that are exponential in the size of the knowledge base.